PDA

View Full Version : Muslim drivers, the Blind, and Seeing-Eye Dogs



Fjord
Feb 29, 2008, 08:19 AM
Referent source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/538

Muslim drivers, the Blind, and Seeing-Eye Dogs.
Proponent: Fjord
Opponent: Khalil
Proposition: Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.

We are here because poster Khalil has submitted to a debate. I have chosen the topic, as agreed, and have, in the preliminary sparring session, confirmed the suspected leaning of the opponent. The debate topic has been deliberately chosen, and it will highlight why the principles of Islam are backward and un-useful in today’s world. It is my hope to keep the debate as practical as possible; thus I propose the following direct questions to my opponent:

1)Is it allowed for a Muslim to give a lift to a blind person who is assisted by a seeing-eye dog?
2)Does the breed of the dog matter?
3)If the answer to 1) is yes, under what conditions? If no, under what conditions? Are there any further exceptions?
4)Does your answer change if the seeing-eye dog is guaranteed a legal right of entry by law?
5)What advice would you – as a self-declared expert at Islamic Law - give to a professional driver who is also a Muslim who has sought your religious advice on this matter?
6)What would your submission be were you to give a submission in respect of 1) and 3) in a court of law.

If any of the above questions is unclear or ambiguous, seek a clarification before attempting to answer.

These are not theoretical questions; they are questions that Muslims and clerics have been faced with. If Islam – and Islamic scholars like Khalil - learn to engage in a re-interpretation of their religious creed, they may then foster a better understanding and agreement of living with the rest of us. When religious discrimination against physically clean, non-threatening, and extremely useful trained animals like dogs leads to the punishment of humans in defiance of laws of the land, isn’t it time for religion to re-consider?

At the end of this debate, the following – among other things - will be clear:

a)That Islam’s discrimination against dogs was and is short-sighted
b)That the discrimination against dogs is a discrimination against the blind who have empowered themselves by breaking free of reliance on other humans.
c)That the religion encourages criminal behaviour by failing to teach adherents to submit to the laws on the country in which they live in respect of seeing-eye dogs with a legal right of entry.
d)That the teaching of the religion in this matter encourages wickedness to other humans.
e)That a few progressive Muslim clerics and scholars support reform in this matter
f)That Khalil is not one of those in 5)

It is my hope to be wrong in the last point above.

Thank you.

Khalil: you have the first right to suggest a moderator.
.

Khalil
Feb 29, 2008, 11:14 AM
Thanks for the post Fjord, but as the tradition of the Crucible holds, it is other Cruciblers that will show interest in the high paid moderating job before we pick a one among them so at least we'll wait for the interests first.

Again I would want to note that while the topic chosen is good enough, and I intend to oppose everything made out of it but it will require you to make your case with a detailed analysis on why you believe, Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.

I suppose you shouldn't just confront me with questions, no, you propose and I oppose. As such I will not answer your questions until you make from them a detailed and substantiated claim along the line of your fine proposal.

You see you said up there "thus I propose the following direct questions to my opponent:"

I don't think it is English to propose a question because the counter action should require an antonym to the word "propose", which in this case will mean "oppose" and of course that will leave us in a situation where you propose a question and I oppose a question.

Secondly I can see you saying in the item (f) of the second part of your post that you intend to prove Khalil as not belonging to the group you term as moderates among Muslims.

May I say here that a debate of this nature should not be about myself or any other person but rather about Islam, its Prophet and various injunctions?

Let's see issues not personalities. If it is about me then make it about me only by making a research about my life, parents, education and any other thing you can find out for at present I don't think you know up to 10% of who and what Khalil is, to enable you make him a subject of debate. That will make me feel too important. From Khalil an ordinary poster at NVS to Khalil a phenomenon on NVS under only a total of 300+ posts, ordinary posts, not deep educational articles that called for serious intellectual inputs.

Remember, I may be a Muslim in the general sense of the term, but I also maybe unique in my own way due to my upbringing, knowledge, exposure and ideological leaning.

Khalilurrahman

tanibaba
Feb 29, 2008, 11:44 AM
The entire topic is about the attitude of muslims to dogs.

Let me tell you that even a lot of muslims do not know the truth about or the ruling concerning this topic. I keep a dog at home and a lot of my followers have asked "why should a muslim/imam keep a dog at home it is unislamic"

I want to state emphatically here that IT IS NOT UNISLAMIC TO KEEP A DOG. It is just that most people are ignorant and lazy.

In the Quran, dog was mentioned two times. The one I can easily recollect now can be found in Suratul Khaf. The cave dwellers were mentioned in the Quran as pious young men and that God is pleased with them. They were with their DOG.

There is a ruling on this topic and it is clear that what a muslim should avoid is the saliva from a dog which is considered as filth. Shikena. Dog is one of the creatures of God and there is no Quranic injuction forbidding us from keep dogs; though the ruling referred to earlier also talked about the reasons/intentions for keeping dogs.

In summary Islam does not forbid the keeping of dogs, playing with them etc as long as we don't allow the saliva to touch our body or cloth. And even if that happens, a muslim should wash off such with soap before approaching prayers.

taslim

Fjord
Feb 29, 2008, 12:47 PM
Thanks for the post Fjord, but as the tradition of the Crucible holds, it is other Cruciblers that will show interest in the high paid moderating job before we pick a one among them so at least we'll wait for the interests first.

The tradition is respected; and thanks for pointing it out (of course, you could have, earlier at the other page; but I suppose there’s no injury); I hope there’ll be willing moderators in this exchange. We had agreed that you will suggest the moderator.


Again I would want to note that while the topic chosen is good enough, and I intend to oppose everything made out of it but it will require you to make your case with a detailed analysis on why you believe, Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.

Since you consider the case good enough; I will - for now, - concede this right to a detailed analysis. I do not wish for an ‘analysis’ more detailed than a response to the title of this thread, and to the questions proposed. Thank you.


I suppose you shouldn't just confront me with questions, no, you propose and I oppose.

The main proposition is as revealed in the title of this debate. The questions are as they are to give the proponent the initial control; we have both commented on this topic on the board; I have clearly revealed – beforehand – that this will be the focus, and format; there are no underhanded tactics regarding my choice of questions or format. The was to move forward is for you to either support or oppose the main proposition, and provide answers to the direct questions without any filibustering, not by you asking me to provide a detailed analysis where you retain a franchise to the definition of what’s detailed. I’m no Islamic scholar, just a humble fellow doing my bit in the factory; but clear enough to see religious injustice where one exists.


As such I will not answer your questions until you make from them a detailed and substantiated claim along the line of your fine proposal.

The original proposition, and the questions, will remain; I will not – until you respond pointedly to the proposition and questions – make anything more detailed according to your dictation.


You see you said up there "thus I propose the following direct questions to my opponent:" I don't think it is English to propose a question because the counter action should require an antonym to the word "propose", which in this case will mean "oppose" and of course that will leave us in a situation where you propose a question and I oppose a question.

It should be easy to consult an online dictionary for the meaning of “propose” as used in the statement your quote; I offer some help with this page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propose ; it may be impressive in some quarters to confound with knowledge; but there’s sth more important than knowledge and many words. Imagination is important, as is the ability to ask questions, even when the questions are uncomfortable. Third-rate lessons in English as a Foreign Language are not. If there is still a misunderstanding of the original post, it is our resolve to assist as reasonably possible. If you desire a debate on semantics and constructions, be free to start a topic of your own; if I’m invited, I’ll be there as time permits.


Secondly I can see you saying in the item (f) of the second part of your post that you intend to prove Khalil as not belonging to the group you term as moderates among Muslims.

Replace 5) with e), and it becomes clearer, doesn’t it? In any case, the originally unintended typo still makes sense, as you’ve been sensible enough to infer. Whether the views of a cleric are “moderate”, or accommodating, or progressive can almost certainly be exposed by taking a stab at the above questions.


May I say here that a debate of this nature should not be about myself or any other person but rather about Islam, its Prophet and various injunctions?

Thanks for the suggestion; but I have no need for it. The proposition and questions for debate are as I have presented them. If you want a debate along the lines of what you suggest, start a new thread in the Crucible.


Let's see issues not personalities. If it is about me then make it about me only by making a research about my life, parents, education and any other thing you can find out for at present I don't think you know up to 10% of who and what Khalil is, to enable you make him a subject of debate. That will make me feel too important. From Khalil an ordinary poster at NVS to Khalil a phenomenon on NVS under only a total of 300+ posts, ordinary posts, not deep educational articles that called for serious intellectual inputs. Remember, I may be a Muslim in the general sense of the term, but I also maybe unique in my own way due to my upbringing, knowledge, exposure and ideological leaning.

Thank you, again. It is this, in particular, that has informed the framing of the original proposition, as well the questions that follow. Ideological leanings are actioned by individuals; and influential individuals as you have a huge role to play. You have presented as a Guardian of the faith on these pages. So rather than call out to all Muslims (some of whom are my friends, and some of whom have openly supported reform in the use of seeing-eye dogs, courting personal danger and scorn from the rest on the other side), this is a call to you as you have presented the ideals of the religion on these pages. Surely, there are Muslims who will disagree with you; there are Muslims who will support the plight of the blind; those Muslims I consider to be on the side of Right. And unless you’re one of them, this debate continues as presented.

Will you respond to the original proposition, and then follow with answers to the proposed question, or do you want more time to prepare and consult? Or, do you want a debate according to what you’ve thought? If the last is the case, you may proceed to open a new topic. As for this one here, there above is how this Proponent wants it.
.

Fjord
Feb 29, 2008, 01:09 PM
The entire topic is about the attitude of muslims to dogs.

No, it is not. Did you read the original post? If you did, did you understand it? If you claim you did, then there is certainly a case for a charge of non-comprehension; that charge will stick on account of your reply.


Let me tell you that even a lot of muslims do not know the truth about or the ruling concerning this topic. I keep a dog at home and a lot of my followers have asked “why should a muslim/imam keep a dog at home it is unislamic”

You have followers? Goodspeed to them. Well, as shown below, (since you make the ridiculous assertion about the number of times “dog” is mentioned in the Quran), those followers are headed for somewhere below level ground, those who truly follow, that is.


I want to state emphatically here that IT IS NOT UNISLAMIC TO KEEP A DOG. It is just that most people are ignorant and lazy.

So, how is this relevant in this discussion? No one has said it is unIslamic to keep a dog. Who has asked anything about a Muslim keeping a dog? Why don’t you read the original post and respond to the direct questions there? Why’re you asking questions you want to answer?


In the Quran, dog was mentioned two times.
You need to do a new thorough reading of the book. When you have revised this premature assertion, we may then begin a new conversation.


The one I can easily recollect now can be found in Suratul Khaf. The cave dwellers were mentioned in the Quran as pious young men and that God is pleased with them. They were with their DOG.

Your assertion is not up to scratch; neither, therefore, is your recall. There’ll be plenty time to tell cave stories; you could even open your own thread. Meanwhile, my heart with your followers; I hope – as a certain modern-day Nigerian prophet sang - that as they “follow-folllow”, dem dey “open-eye” too.


There is a ruling on this topic and it is clear that what a muslim should avoid is the saliva from a dog which is considered as filth. Shikena. Dog is one of the creatures of God and there is no Quranic injuction forbidding us from keep dogs; though the ruling referred to earlier also talked about the reasons/intentions for keeping dogs. .

There is no new information in Tanibaba's post. Before you made the post above, psot #54 on this thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/44962-barack-obama-illuminati-agent-2.html) already more-than-hinted at salivating


In summary Islam does not forbid the keeping of dogs, playing with them etc as long as we don’t allow the saliva to touch our body or cloth. And even if that happens, a muslim should wash off such with soap before approaching prayers.

Your attempt at summary and dismissal is a premature evaluation. That includes the useless detail that you own any number of dogs; it does not even begin to answer any of the proposed questions; if anything at all, you've about confirmed that you accept that there is a discrimination against dogs, by way of the saliva of dogs, because it is filth. You’re not critical to examine why. Could you explain then why the saliva of a cat isn't filth? Or than of a cow? Or, following the tradition of itemising:

T1) Why is the saliva of a dog considered filth?
T2) What about the saliva of other non-human animals?
T3) What about the saliva of humans?

*** You've begun by using a word like "lazy"; this is quite telling, since your post shows you’re not only a lazy reader, you’re a lazy thinker as well; please do not take offence. You present yourself as a leader; you assert that the Quran mentions “dog” only twice, and state – without any further thought – that the saliva of dogs is filth. How could anyone consider these and be gentle with you?

*** I hope the moderator will retain your post.

Khalil
Feb 29, 2008, 02:50 PM
Since you consider the case good enough; I will - for now, - concede this right to a detailed analysis. I do not wish for an ‘analysis’ more detailed than a response to the title of this thread, and to the questions proposed. Thank you.

Actually I did not say in anyway I want a right or left of anything to be conceded to me.



The main proposition is as revealed in the title of this debate.

And the main opposition is revealed in my total rejections of the position expressed by the title of the debate.


The questions are as they are to give the proponent the initial control; we have both commented on this topic on the board; I have clearly revealed – beforehand – that this will be the focus, and format; there are no underhanded tactics regarding my choice of questions or format. The was to move forward is for you to either support or oppose the main proposition, and provide answers to the direct questions without any filibustering, not by you asking me to provide a detailed analysis where you retain a franchise to the definition of what’s detailed. I’m no Islamic scholar, just a humble fellow doing my bit in the factory; but clear enough to see religious injustice where one exists.

I didn't ask to be given any initial control of anything. And as much your questions only shifts the burden of proof on me NOT giving me control over anything. If you are not an Islamic scholar you should have called for a question and answer session not a debate where you will be required to make a full pledged case before you expect a response. We certainly would not have come here saying we would debate anything. This is what debate is according some dictionary definition:

1. talk or argue about something: to talk about something at length and in detail, specially as part of a formal exchange of opinion

2. think about something: to ponder something carefully

noun (plural de·bates)

1. public meeting for discussion: an organized or public discussion of something

2. argument: argument or prolonged discussion,


3. consideration: a prolonged consideration of something

Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Of interest are 1 of the first segment of options and 2, 3 of the second segments of options and I do not think you have taken a sufficient posture to call for an entry on my part.

Please check the Crucible here and you will find the debate between Eja and Mulan which creators of the Crucible and its audience have all applauded to be used as a bench mark, a model for starting and and concluding a debate here.



The original proposition, and the questions, will remain; I will not – until you respond pointedly to the proposition and questions – make anything more detailed according to your dictation.

The above is not helping matters.

So also your reference to dictionary that does not say asking questions is similar to proposing them. Well we can propose that questions should be asked at the same time we can oppose that they should not be asked. But we can't propose questions just like that! We can only ask questions.



You have presented as a Guardian of the faith on these pages.

No. I have always presented myself here and everywhere as an informed Muslim who adheres to the true teachings of Islam, within human limit, as I always say the issues are Islam, its Prophet and injunctions NOT the person of Muhammad or other Muslims which many are fond of attacking.


So rather than call out to all Muslims (some of whom are my friends, and some of whom have openly supported reform in the use of seeing-eye dogs, courting personal danger and scorn from the rest on the other side), this is a call to you as you have presented the ideals of the religion on these pages.

Then I'll appreciate a critique of these ideals as I presented them when anybody should call me to a debate. But one can ask me about my views and that must not be called a debate. It may be called information quest!

If you are willing to debate me please make a detailed and substantive post otherwise, I am afraid, but I'll say you don't have a case against my Prophet who has been an object of verbal attack from you all along. You also don't have a case against me.

Make it clear you want a question and answer session, then we can move out of the Crucible and I'll be ready to answer your questions fully as I've shown readiness to do as much elsewhere and before in as much as they remain civil and without attempt to ridicule me or disparage the person of my Prophet.

Sorry please if I caused you any discomfort.


Khalilurrahman

Palamedes
Feb 29, 2008, 03:38 PM
@Fjord
I think you need to narrow down the debate: The topics presupposes that Islam bans the use of dogs-for-the-blind. And if this were true, then this one proof condemns [all or some] principles of Islam. Is this your line of argument and not just the principles associated with the use of dogs-for-the-blind?

Also, unless you are a good authority on the teaching of Islam. you run the risk of personal attacks—call it dirty tricks--from your opponents with claim that you are not an authority on Islam. They will lure you into deep and unfamiliar territory in Islamic teaching to discredit you.

Fjord
Feb 29, 2008, 03:39 PM
In other words, you're ready for a debate on the issues raised, but you don't like the format for presentation. that's your call: you could go ahead and start another thread in the Crucible in your preferred format. This one debate, however, is in my preferred format. I like this format, you don't; I'm ready to meet your half-way by submitting to your format, as agreed, in a follow-up debate.

Regarding the definition of propose: do not limit yourself; just click on the link provided. A concession is not needed from you: we live to learn, and nowhere else can the humility to accept wrong be so clear as in the definition of words with meaning (as of now) cast in stone.

The previous format is not the end of being innovative: another idea that's been tabled in the Crucible. This, here is a form of it. To begin to whine and write so many words rather than proceed to attck the issues as presented is, well, disgraceful, especially after the boasts made elsewhere on these boards.

The questions asked will expose the undesired and backward position we're seeking to change. But to insist that I change the format at your insistence is to ask for too much. Perhaps, there'll be no debate; but if there'll be, it will be in the format I have outlined.
.

Tola Odejayi
Feb 29, 2008, 03:50 PM
Fjord,

If you want to debate on the Crucible, the rules state that you need to state a summary of your position in your first post (instead of asking Khalil questions, as you have done in your opening post). Then it is up to Khalil to respond with his opening position. Then you can exchange submissions (maximum of 6 each). By doing this, it is very clear what the issue being debated is.

If you can't find a moderator to agree to the debate, I'll step in.

Alaye Farouk
Feb 29, 2008, 04:12 PM
Me I no think say this debate go pleasant o!.

Fjord
Mar 1, 2008, 03:55 AM
Shoko Loko Bangoshe: I've browsed through one or two debates in this section; not all the concluded debates adhered to the strict format you've stated; if you're able to find an example fitting the description you've given, you could refere to such unambiguously. In any case, my first post, in the format presented stands as it is. As Khalil is unwilling to proceed after his initial submission, I will not have the time to rephrase. He could go ahead and proceed with his preferred format, on the same or a different topic, at any corner of this website
.

Fjord
Mar 1, 2008, 04:32 AM
@Fjord, I think you need to narrow down the debate: The topics presupposes that Islam bans the use of dogs-for-the-blind. And if this were true, then this one proof condemns [all or some] principles of Islam. Is this your line of argument and not just the principles associated with the use of dogs-for-the-blind?.

The extended version of the topic: "Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs" along with the other submissions are clear. The Opponent isn't complaining about the clarity of issues; and I think the issues are clear enough when the first post is read. Post #3, by another self-declared Islamic leader gives more than a hint: 'it's not the dogs, per se, it's their saliva...'. By the assertion that the disposition towards dogs was short-sighted, I make to argue that Islam couldn't have foreseen the very beneficial use of dogs to assist the blind, and, rigidity/inflexibility means a blind adherence to an injunction centuries old. One may attempt, as the poster in #3 had, to make this an issue against the general disposition of Islam to dogs; I urge a narrower reading of the topic to the specific case in relation to the blind.


Also, unless you are a good authority on the teaching of Islam. you run the risk of personal attacks—call it dirty tricks--from your opponents with claim that you are not an authority on Islam. They will lure you into deep and unfamiliar territory in Islamic teaching to discredit you.

I am not on bad authority. There are court cases, and transcripts to back this up. This, I could add: this humble servant had been somewhat involved in at least a court case, right at this corner of earth, on this very issue. On our streets, Muslim drivers were refusing to provide taxi services to some of our friends who are legally blind, and have the assistance of service dogs; there have been similar cases elsewhere. Some of these drivers had quite innovative reasons, and science had been called upon to crush those diversionary excuses. It was interesting to listen to the several Islamic experts, both in formal and informal settings as they attempted to justify and un-justify their positions (and, as indictaed in the original post, some of these were quite reasonable, and accommodating, with the result that they have been largely branded as unfaithful). Typically, balance culdn't be struck before the full weight of the law was called to give a clear, unambiguous position. Surely, one doesn't have to be an expert at Islamic Law to be able to reasonably discuss this; the lawyers who handled this, say, knew nothing of Islamic law to begin with. It is possible, very, to argue a case successfully - as we have in the case of our good friend - with a bit of research and common sense. And, there's the aspect of collision with legal, non-religious law; surely, expertise in religious laws isn't needed for that. Let them lure to their deep; to the extent that imagination and reason are superior to the knowledge that confounds, we shall keep on message.
.

Tola Odejayi
Mar 1, 2008, 07:31 AM
Shoko Loko Bangoshe: I've browsed through one or two debates in this section; not all the concluded debates adhered to the strict format you've stated; if you're able to find an example fitting the description you've given, you could refere to such unambiguously. In any case, my first post, in the format presented stands as it is. As Khalil is unwilling to proceed after his initial submission, I will not have the time to rephrase. He could go ahead and proceed with his preferred format, on the same or a different topic, at any corner of this website
.
Fjord,

The concluded debates do not adhere strictly to the rules, that is true - and this is because we were still in the process of working out the rules then. But even then, none of the debates started with a proponent asking an opponent a question - they all started with the proponent making a proposition.

You are certainly free to stick to your format; however, I will have to decline to moderate if you choose to do so. I actually think it is unfair not to nail your colours to the mast, but to seek to draw out your opponent's position so that you can demolish it, without giving him the opportunity to do the same to your position. Perhaps this is why Khalil has chosen not to engage you.

Fjord
Mar 1, 2008, 07:44 AM
Shoko Loko Bangoshe:

you admit that none of the debates adhered to the stict rules you earlier outlined. Was there a place these rules were ratified by either a plurality or a majority? The rules, it appears, are still a work in progress.

Your pre-decline is welcome, as is my, er, unfairness. Khalil has agreed that there are issues of importance in the original post. Failure to engage by Khalil means he will not be able to quibble in this format; I prefer that.

In any case, Khalil and I will have to agree to the moderator. As things stand, you have declined already.

I, on the other hand, have offered Khalil to resume debate, in any format of his wish on any other topic; the basic determinants for debate with him will remain the same.
.

Tola Odejayi
Mar 1, 2008, 09:06 AM
Shoko Loko Bangoshe:

you admit that none of the debates adhered to the stict rules you earlier outlined. Was there a place these rules were ratified by either a plurality or a majority? The rules, it appears, are still a work in progress.
Fjord,

First of all, it's always a good idea to get buy-in from people who will be affected by the rules of the Crucible. This is why when I posted the original rules, I invited comment. But there's nothing saying that any rules must ratified by a majority or plurality for them to take effect.

Secondly, the rules have changed over time in response to what has been observed. There's nothing surprising about this - there's no organisation that operates on the same rules that it operated on when it was established. The thing is, even though debates may not follow the current rules, they did follow the rules that were current at that time.

Personally, I think you could have just opened a thread anywhere else on the board to debate the issue you wish to debate; there's no need to do this on the Crucible.

Khalil
Mar 1, 2008, 12:41 PM
Fjord,

You are certainly free to stick to your format; however, I will have to decline to moderate if you choose to do so. I actually think it is unfair not to nail your colours to the mast, but to seek to draw out your opponent's position so that you can demolish it, without giving him the opportunity to do the same to your position. Perhaps this is why Khalil has chosen not to engage you.

Thanks SLB for the pointers

The truth of the matter is by Fjord's proposition he has taken Islam to public court on some deliberate charges made by him and expects me to substantiate the charges for him by asking me deliberate questions, even though what I depend, in this case is supposed to be the culprit. I don't know what will happen in the event I answer the questions and my answers do not substantiate his case.

Secondly, he seems to make a gross error by shifting the charges on myself not Islam when at the end of his questions he submitted that by the end of this debate he would succeed in proving that I am not a moderate Muslim (whatever that may mean), since there are Muslims who agree on reforms on the same subject matter he is accusing Islam of being utterly backward on.

This raises one fundamental question of interest. Can Muslims reform their religion and way of life without Islam and remain Muslims? The answer of course is no for if Muslims should reform their religion and remain Muslims they must do it within principles laid down by Islam. So if indeed there are ways to reform Islam in such a way that it will accommodate the concern of Fjord in his proposed topic then Islam is not the problem, it is not the one that, " discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs". The topic then should be:

Some Muslims discriminate against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.



And since he believes I am among Muslims who do just that then he has to add something like:

And Khalil is one of them.

Then he will be required to prove so by making a detailed case of how he saw or read me anywhere doing just that. Then I can come and defend myself in a debating mode where finally our audience or judges will pass the final verdict.


I am highly desperate to end whatever it is that makes Fjord often gets onto my person, the person of my Prophet, or religion on these forums and if he can make his submission a bit more logical, is it myself, Islam or its Prophet he has a case with? Or is it all? Then I wound'nt mind starting by answering his questions. But he should know that I made all the concessions to come this far. I am really desperate.


Khalilurrahman

Fjord
Mar 1, 2008, 03:07 PM
Shoko Loko Bangoshe,

in fact, you never got inputs from everyone who'll be potentially affected by Crucible rules, and, the observation points - by way of any ongoing and concluded debates - are rather too few to make a definite that's-how-it-is-and-that's-how-it-must-remain comments about procedures and rules.

And, your personal views may stand, just as well as Khalil's refusal to discuss an issue he considers important, except that the format gives no room for the online debate equivalent of filibuster.

Khalil is free to reword any issue he may be willing to debate in the Crucible; I will not be able to recast my submission on the issues of this thread.

A suggestion: it may be useful to distill the several pages of discussion on the first Crucible thread into one clear thread which could only be updated by someone with special access privileges; that way, one may be saved the chore of going through several pages. In any case I could be certain that you're not advocating a freeze on debating formats, or ideas, or suggesting that if two debaters would agree on some format different from what is proposed, such a discussion/debate will be disqualified from the Crucible. There could be - one must say - something as taking ourselves too seriously.
.

Fjord
Mar 1, 2008, 03:31 PM
I am highly desperate to end whatever it is that makes Fjord often gets onto my person, the person of my Prophet, or religion on these forums and if he can make his submission a bit more logical, is it myself, Islam or its Prophet he has a case with? Or is it all? Then I wouldn't mind starting by answering his questions. But he should know that I made all the concessions to come this far. I am really desperate.

If I really do get on your person, it is never without probably cause. If you're able to provide an instance where any such "getting on your person" has been unjustified, then I'll be willing to address it. Your person isn't as important as what you present yourself to represent. Unfortunately, you deliberately inject your religion into most discussions where one has written in response to you. And, if you'll be fair, you'll note that when you've made a fair point, it'd been conceeded.

As for your prophet, I will always get on his case big time, anytime. He is game, as are any other deities, so-called by men. He was no more than any other male mammal, was a pedophile - to the extent that he couldn't, despite his prophethood, recognise a pre-teen girl for what she was: a child - , was a warmonger, and an irredeemable liar. Those are falsifiable claims; and they are true. I will cut you any number of slack, but your prophet, no..

And, be sure, I've no case against Islam, really; but retain the right to denounce and reject any one of any religion who hesitates to condemn in uncertain terms acts of personal violence committed in the name of any religion; if your religion falls into the mix, too bad. Christianity is game, too: somehow, you appear more than slightly confused as you've made rather unwise and quite possibly foolish statements about what you perceive to be my "religion".

Neither do I have any issues with religious practices to the extent that they do not infringe on my rights, and the rights of my friends and neighbours. The practice of taxi drivers refusing to pick up legally blind persons accompanied by service dogs with a legal right of entry falls into that space, so I'll cut no such religious practice any slack. I'll employ science to refute the assertion (where relevant) of those drivers that they're allergic to hair and would - as one Muslim driver said - "sneeeze"; I'll cut no slack for anyone supporting them based on religious laws.

I'll also not cut any slack for any religious leader, or so-called religious scholar who elevates knowledge, by itself, to the level of clear thought: that is a backwardness of learning by rote; neither will there be any slack for anyone who proposes that the sort of education offered by certain religious schools should be encouraged, over and above readily available and superior education. People who propose that a certain set of religious laws show be made supreme in secular lands come in for particular scorn: they're the dregs of humanity; and they get what's coming to them, most of which will be reasoning, and ridicule.

You don't suppose that some or all of these apply to someone familiar, do you?
.

Tola Odejayi
Mar 1, 2008, 03:47 PM
A suggestion: it may be useful to distill the several pages of discussion on the first Crucible thread into one clear thread which could only be updated by someone with special access privileges; that way, one may be saved the chore of going through several pages.
Fjord,

All you need to do to know what rules currently apply is to look at the first post in this thread:

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/43940-welcome-crucible.html

Palamedes
Mar 1, 2008, 07:06 PM
Guys, GET ON WITH THE DEBATE, would ya! Enough of the 'tidying up.' It is becoming like spring cleaning the house before the inlaws come to stay.

Fjord
Mar 2, 2008, 05:48 AM
Shoko Loko Bangoshe: below is the full text of the post you referred me to from the link above:


Dear all,

I would like to introduce you to a new section opening in the Square called the Crucible - so named, because it is where ideas and opinions on a range of issues will be forged in the white heat of debate.

I have already explained briefly the procedure for initiating and maintaining debate here:

NVS Debates: A proposal

However, for the avoidance of confusion, I will list the rules here again:

1. The Debate opens when a villager (who I will refer to now on as the Proponent) creates a thread whose title will contain a description of the issue he wishes to debate.

2. In the first post on this thread, the Proponent will state his position in a single sentence. He will then call for villagers who wish to debate against this position to do so. He should keep the issue simple (i.e. not to try to cram too many issues into the debate) otherwise the debate can easily be led off-track.

Optionally, the Proponent can explain why he holds this position - he doesn't have to do this, but it will speed up the debate and encourage responses if he does.

Only timeless issues will be debated, not news stories. This means that a topic like "It is right for Ribadu to be redeployed" is not acceptable; however, a topic like "Government officials should have fixed terms of service that can only altered by a clear presidential statement" is.

Also, any position that a Debater holds in a debate should not be deemed to be a position they hold outside the debate, and as such any argument made within the debate such not be referenced elsewhere.

3. Any villager wishing to debate against the Proponent will then signify their intention by making posts on the newly created thread stating their positions also in a single sentence. They may (optionally) state why they hold their positions.

4. The Proponent must then clearly indicate who (of all the respondents) he wishes to debate with. (I will refer to this selected villager as the Opponent, and to both of them together as the Debaters.)

5. Once the Opponent has been selected, a Moderator needs to be chosen. The role of the Moderator will be:

- to keep the debate focused by reminding the Debaters to stay on-topic;

- to weed out off-topic posts by alerting a board moderator to these so that they can either be moved to another thread or deleted entirely (see point 10);

- to end the Debate if one of the Debaters fails to respond in good time (see point 8) or if she feels the debate has gone on for too long (see point 12);

- to summarise the points made by the Debaters at the end of the thread (see point 13).

The Moderator can either be chosen by the Proponent and/or Opponent issuing a call on the thread for a Moderator and then picking from the list of volunteers, or by approaching specific villagers and asking them to moderate.

6. The Debaters may choose not to debate with a Moderator is one isn't available. However, they have to then trust that they will not stray off-topic, and they will have to fully take on the role of policing the thread for off-topic or insulting posts by alerting a board moderator to these. Lastly, they themselves will need to produce a fair summary of their positions at the end of the debate.

7. Once a Moderator has been chosen, the debate may start. The Proponent will start by responding to the first post made by the Opponent in which he stated his position; after this, the Opponent will respond to this new post by the Proponent, and so on.

8. A Debater must respond to a post within 36 hours, otherwise the Moderator may declare the Debater as absent and may choose to end the debate. If a Debater knows that they will not be available in the next 36 hours, they should make a post on the debate thread informing everyone of the next possible date they will be able to make a post. If the absent Debater fails to make a post before or on the date they have set, then the Moderator may choose to end the debate.

9. No other villager may participate in the debate - only the Proponent, Opponent and Moderator may make posts on the debate thread. If a villager wishes to make a comment or ask a question, he should create a new thread (preferably with a similar title to the debate thread) - but he should do this only if a thread like this does not exist already. Then he can make his post there. Such a thread will not be moderated, so the thread will just be like any other thread on the board.

10. If a villager other than the Debaters and Moderator makes a post on the debate thread, the Moderator will cause a new thread to be created and cause the villager's post to be moved to that thread. He may also cause insulting posts to be deleted in their entirety.

11. If a Debater feels he has been insulted in a post, he can ask his fellow Debater to amend the offending post or to delete it entirely. The fellow Debater may comply, or he may insist that his post should stand and give his reasons. The offended Debater has two options - he may accept the reason given, or he may choose not to debate any further, in which case the debate ends.

12. The debate ends when:

- Either of the Debaters calls for it to end because they have made all the points they can make on the issue;

- The Moderator ends the debate because it has run on for too long, say over a month (this is not hard and fast, though);

- The Moderator ends the debate because one of the Debaters has been absent for longer than the stipulated period (see point 8);

- Either of the Debaters calls for it to end because they have been insulted by their fellow Debater and don't wish to continue debating with him (see point 11).

13. At the end of the Debate, the Moderator will produce a summary of the points made by both Debaters. This will be helpful to those who revisit the debate at a future date and who may not have the time to go through every single post made to determine the positions of both Debaters.

[I have deleted the examples I gave, as we now have real world examples of how a debate may proceed.]

To get things off to a smooth start, I'll offer my services as debate moderator for the first three debates unconditionally. After that... well, we'll see.

So - if you are interested in debating an issue with someone else, open a new thread, issue a call for debaters and get going!

I have read the above (as it was as of a few minutes ago); my submission is this: my post falls perfectly within the rules; and it is unfait to complain that I did not keep within the rules.

I presented a single sentence:Proposition: Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs., and went ahead to expound on that sentence. You may disagree with my format of introducing questions and the long narration after the initial sentence, but you're not on firm ground to argue that the original post is outside of the rules; Khalil is neither. Perhaps the rules may now be amended to exlude the format in which I have chosen, but the acknowledgement must be made thatthis was after the fact; going by what the written rules were, it appears my original post is in good order.

If you disagree with this assertion, please point out what part of the rules in that first post - as they were as of a few minutes ago - are in conflict with the rules.
.

DeepThought
Mar 2, 2008, 06:40 AM
Shoko,
Is Fjord in alighment with the rules afterall?

I should observe that I for one don't believe the Crucible is the right place for this particular debate for the following reasons


Also, any position that a Debater holds in a debate should not be deemed to be a position they hold outside the debate, and as such any argument made within the debate such not be referenced elsewhere.

I think I have a problem with the above , especially this:


and as such any argument made within the debate such not be referenced elsewhere.

This debate is an offshoot of an argument started elsewhere. Does it mean when this debate starts , the thread which generated it will be closed or commentators to that thread will not reference here? How realistic is that?

Perhaps you may want to possibly consider revising the rules to reflect that positions argumed by debators reflect their convictions? I dunno?



I also read somewhere where you expounded that the Crucible should not be a carry over of old arguments/scores e.t.c.
I don't see the above in the rules but clearly this particular debate violates that spirit. For these reasons, I honestly don't think the Crucible is the appropriate place for this debate.

Finally:
There are those who think the crucible is just about fun. It is not.
Fun may be part of what its about, but I don't think some of these issues are fun at all.

Also, this particular type of debate underscores the wisdom in not declaring any winner. I see that clearly now.

Fjord
Mar 2, 2008, 07:18 AM
DT: thanks for your contribution.

We're on the same page with regard to the quotes regarding referencing debates here elsewhere: impractical, and unnecessary; there's such a thing as taking ourselves too seriously though. But I trust the rules are still a work-in-progress. With regard to the topic of this thread, I suppose Khalil insisted on coming here because he felt my posts were "insulting"; it is difficult to write about the ideas he proposes without ridicule.

I'll like to see SLB's response to my last post: that my original post is within the rules; Khalil declined to debate because he feels severely handicapped by my first post. I chose a presentation within the rules (the rules may have been short-sighted, in hindsight) and one I believe will enhance the discussion and protect subsequent posts from unnecessary distractions. I've invited Khalil to proceed elsewhere if he wishes according to any format preferred by him. What more could one offer?

With regard to Crucible rules, one must note: it takes good attention to make strict rules; there are loopholes in the rules; one did not seek to exploit them; but who could be blamed for arriving at an interpretation - however unforseen - allowed by the rules?

I believe a diligent reading of the rules could not mean a disqualification fo my original post based on the format.

Tola Odejayi
Mar 2, 2008, 10:10 AM
Hello Fjord.

I admit that I wasn't paying attention to the opening statement you made (i.e. Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.) and was focusing too heavily on the questions. I suppose that irrespective of the extra stuff you have added, this should be fine. Sorry for the confusion.

However, Khalil may choose to state his position without directly responding to the questions you have asked. Otherwise, he will be 'dancing to your tune' rather than setting out his stall as you have.

So if Khalil is OK with this, and if you will still have me as a moderator... :)



DT,

Regarding that rule that you reference, the intent behind that rule is that people should not have positions they take during the debate to be positions that they personally hold; this may be true some of the time, but sometimes someone may want to argue for a position because they want to test their debating skills, not because they personally hold that position.

Fjord
Mar 2, 2008, 12:40 PM
SLB: I welcome the concession that my original post is not in conflict with existing Crucible rules. Thank you.

Even if the direct questions in that post are ignored in the anticipated response by Khalil, I want to make it clear that I will repeat them in my subsequent post; my reading of the rules means he will have to address them. Will Khalil, who has defended Crucible rules now admit - as SLB has graciously and clearly done - that he had misread the rules, and that the first post in this thread conforms with Crucible rules?

The format here was chosen deliberately, and one will allow Khalil the same latitude in any other debate with me. It's not this poster's fault that there are allowances in the rules that makes the format one has chosen permissible. We can be creative, as long as we're within the rules, not so?

Khalil: what's your submission? You now have no credible basis to object to my original post now, do you? I see you agreed (by way of your "Thanks ", at least) to SLB's post when it appeared in your favour. Are you courageous enough to revise? This speaks to character, if you catch my slight drift.
.

nero africanus
Mar 2, 2008, 01:43 PM
SLB: I welcome the concession that my original post is not in conflict with existing Crucible rules. Thank you.

Even if the direct questions in that post are ignored in the anticipated response by Khalil, I want to make it clear that I will repeat them in my subsequent post; my reading of the rules means he will have to address them. Will Khalil, who has defended Crucible rules now admit - as SLB has graciously and clearly done - that he had misread the rules, and that the first post in this thread conforms with Crucible rules?

The format here was chosen deliberately, and one will allow Khalil the same latitude in any other debate with me. It's not this poster's fault that there are allowances in the rules that makes the format one has chosen permissible. We can be creative, as long as we're within the rules, not so?

Khalil: what's your submission? You now have no credible basis to object to my original post now, do you? I see you agreed (by way of your "Thanks ", at least) to SLB's post when it appeared in your favour. Are you courageous enough to revise? This speaks to character, if you catch my slight drift.
.


pitching questions to khalil boils down to pidgeon holeing him and attempting to put him at disadvantage and if i were khalil , i wont answer them

indeed if i were fjord, i will use the expected answers to these questions to make my point rather than pose condescending confining questions, it will then be left to Khalil to either debunk them as false or explain the context of that existence

standard debates are not held on the basis of questions , rather on the facts where they are the answers that fjord expects from these questions

when questions rather than factual points are posed in a debate, it ceases to be a debate and becomes a cross examination

DeepThought
Mar 2, 2008, 04:36 PM
Nero,
Thanks for your post. While you and I may not particularly like the Fjord's proposition, it does fall within the rules of the Crucible and that, when push comes to shove is all that matters .

Yes, by appending those questions right away to the initial proposition it does seem like an inquisition and I think Fjord should simply have made the proposition and reserved those questions till latter in the debate. As it were, I think he exposed his hand too early and gave his opponent the excuse to back out of what I think is an intolerable position.

Poor judgement, IMO, maybe, but still he is within the rules and may have his reasons for proposing in that way.

But then, perhaps Fjord is even more subtle (insidious? )that we know and give him credit for? :D
Perhaps he knew exactly what to expect and wanted his opponent to back out? :D

That would be absolutely brilliant.
Exploiting the rules to get your opponent to turn tail without firing a single shot?
I don't know. Fjord should clarify what his intentions are/were?

Khalil
Mar 3, 2008, 09:52 AM
Yes, by appending those questions right away to the initial proposition it does seem like an inquisition and I think Fjord should simply have made the proposition and reserved those questions till latter in the debate. As it were, I think he exposed his hand too early and gave his opponent the excuse to back out of what I think is an intolerable position.

Poor judgement, IMO, maybe, but still he is within the rules and may have his reasons for proposing in that way.

But then, perhaps Fjord is even more subtle (insidious? )that we know and give him credit for? :D
Perhaps he knew exactly what to expect and wanted his opponent to back out? :D

That would be absolutely brilliant.
Exploiting the rules to get your opponent to turn tail without firing a single shot?
I don't know. Fjord should clarify what his intentions are/were?

Thanks again Nero, DeepThought for yet another fine pointers.

The truth of the matter is court of laws are the most examples of debating grounds and as I made it clear from the onset nobody should take one to court and ask them questions to justify the charges against them. Even here on the Crucible or elsewhere where debates do go, I have not come across a single debate which started in the line he is starting this one. And he is claiming to only have been "creative" on the ways debates are being done here or elsewhere when all are seeing motives behind his postures.

But as DeepThought rightly observed, Fjord may have craftily done that just to have me back out without firing a single shot and in that as you've seen through it many will also see that he indeed did not want to have this debate with me, for the realization that he may not be able to get his way in a debate like this with me, but rather he may have been pressured to come and start it by the challenge he already committed to at the main board at our constant pressure.

Whatever the case maybe he can make it clear what his intentions are as DeepThought suggested.

For it appears to me that Fjord may be a cop in the USA who has troubles with the poor Muslims there who don't want be giving his people ride, and he wants a good paper that will prove an evidence against those Muslims. So by engaging me this way he can get what he wants if it happens the answers I give do not substantiate the claims of his Muslim people there. After all why must he conclude by saying I am surely of the same opinion with those Muslims even without knowing my opinion? That means he wants me to come out with proofs saying I am not.

However, Fjord should have known he could get such a paper from me without tricking me to it, by sending me a PM and asking me to help him in his case.

But taking it to this length without sufficient logic as seen by many among those who took time to say their mind in this thread, will mean giving himself too much credit for getting what he wants from me at the expense of what later he would be terming as my 'ignorance ' and lack of ground understanding of the claims in the arts and practices of WAR.

In any case I am willing to give in to his trap if he can come to terms with the observations many made with regard to his motives and if he can clarify with good submission, my next post here will be a step forward toward answering the question by a detailed analysis of myself( since I am among the issues), Islam, Dogs, Blind and what I consider to be the correct jurisprudential opinion regarding Dogs and The Blind, in Islam according to tradition. But let him know that my honest opinion will never support the opinion of those poor Muslim taxi drivers of his neighborhood as he seems to have concluded I would. But he may learn from it why in every culture, people do not want to be described as dogs as in the popular American way of saying "son of a b**tch. the word is even strong enough to be rejected by the program used to code this site.

Khalilurrahman

Fjord
Mar 4, 2008, 06:12 PM
DT: in the preliminary exchange before moving here, I’d assured my Opponent that all the cards will be on the table face-up, and that there’ll be no aces to play; there’ll be no ambushing; in fact, I’d informed of the content of the debate. The substance of this debate isn’t a measure of “smart”, but I’ll argue it’s a measure of character, ‘humanity’, logic, and reason; these transcend, and should trump religion. It is the confidence that Khalil’s declared position will fail to meet up to these standards, which all reasonable people take for granted, that warranted the early disclosure, and the allowance of any sort of latitude.

Certainly, I find the provision that a position taken in a debate in the Crucible corner of the square need not be identical to one’s true conviction ridiculous: this is not a high-school debate: at least, not this one. In any case, I’m taking Khalil up on this as a matter of principle, meaning, what he ought to do when put in the box where there’ll be no wriggle room. Is this unfair? I think not.

In the small battles we have had to fight against drivers who live in our district, we find that personal choices have been important in standing up for what is right in behalf of our fellow citizens. The most honest of the Islamic clerics who support our cause have nonetheless spoken of how “innovative” they have to be in confronting practical issues. This is much the same – one could say, and anyone willing could take this up in debate – about the Bible’s discrimination against women. Priests and Bible scholars who argue for the consecration of female priests have had to be innovative. They – unlike the likes of Khalil – do not deny the lapse; they acknowledge it, and acknowledge the necessity of a “broader” outlook. It is quite obvious why such an admission will deliver a death-dealing blow to Khalil’s arguments concerning Islam’s holy text, and the positions of the prophet he maintains is a sacred being.

If there is no debate, it will not be because my original post is outside the rules (it is, perfectly, as it is being admitted), it will be because Khalil’s position is so completely wiped out there’s no hope for redemption in debate. With this one a no-contest, Khalil is challenged to address another topic at the Crucible.
.

ikechiji
Mar 4, 2008, 06:40 PM
I would hate to see this debate die before getting to the ko-ko of the matter.

Fjord, since your proposition is: "Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs", could you lead off the debate by providing us with facts or evidence of how Islam discriminates against blind people with seeing-eye dogs.

No more hot air folks. Let's get it on.

Fjord
Mar 4, 2008, 07:06 PM
Whatever the case maybe he can make it clear what his intentions are as DeepThought suggested.

Being attentive to read clearly, anyone could have made out what I’d chosen to reveal as to my intentions, both on this thread, and on the other from which I came down here. In any case, I’ll leave whatever has not been written as such: the search for intentions is a sign of submission, and defeat. The motions stand uncontested, not because any rules were flouted, but because the Opponent was routed, even before the battle began. Nothing more time saving than such a motion, no?


For it appears to me that Fjord may be a cop in the USA who has troubles with the poor Muslims there who don't want be giving his people ride, and he wants a good paper that will prove an evidence against those Muslims. So by engaging me this way he can get what he wants if it happens the answers I give do not substantiate the claims of his Muslim people there. After all why must he conclude by saying I am surely of the same opinion with those Muslims even without knowing my opinion? That means he wants me to come out with proofs saying I am not.

Hogwash; and quite foolish speculation. You probably don’t know how functioning societies work; if you did, you’ll know that it’s essentially not a police officer’s job to seek justification for acts against the law. You also don’t know he meaning of “evidence”; whatever you may write, may I inform you, cannot just qualify as “evidence”. The problems of Muslim drivers span North America and Europe; we have successfully prosecuted a case in our small village; and Muslim drivers refusing rides to blind persons accompanied by guide dogs will now lose their driving licenses, in addition to paying a small fine, and engaging in community-service at the premises of a special school for the blind; our police officers in mufti have been conducting random checks at taxi parks. So far, the drivers have behaved themselves, despite their initial objections. Had you submitted to an actual debate, there will have been real-life examples where reason and law and humanity have routed absurd religious positions. I need no proofs from you; whatever you have add nothing to substantive arguments that’ve been satisfactorily concluded.

A word of advice: if you’ll pay as much attention to thinking things through as you do to rote learning, you’d’ve done yourself a lot of good. There’re excellent scholars, but a number of events during our engagement with people showed how an average plumber could rout a so-called well educated cleric at the same text the cleric had memorised: he could recite whole passages from the sacred text, off hand in two languages; yet, the contradictions and nuances escaped him.


However, Fjord should have known he could get such a paper from me without tricking me to it, by sending me a PM and asking me to help him in his case.

I’ve nothing to discuss with you in PM. We encountered persons more bigoted than you as we marched forward for justice for our friends; what is different is that we dealt with some Muslims who were able to think, and admit what was rather obvious to us. We won extra points with the support of experts who gave opinions to support our position. We would have won the case without them; but it was important for strategic reasons. The direct questions you have refused to address are similar to those we asked them in sessions before the formal testimony; sure they’re not easy questions; but courage, plus an essential human quality, was needed to address them without ambiguity; it is now beyond simple suspicion that you may not possess this essential human quality.


But taking it to this length without sufficient logic as seen by many among those who took time to say their mind in this thread, will mean giving himself too much credit for getting what he wants from me at the expense of what later he would be terming as my 'ignorance ' and lack of ground understanding of the claims in the arts and practices of WAR.

More hogwash. It is a testimony to fairness that reasonable people who held that the initial post conflicted with the rules have reversed their opinion: they did because they examined the rules. Complaints of unfairness qualify only as whining; your refusal to debate is an acknowledgement of defeat. In any case, your boasts have come to nothing: you won’t even raise a finger; you won’t fight; why? It’s because even you could recognise a lost cause. There’ll be more coming: simple, straightforward cases where your religious outlook will be presented in such a way that the position is so embarrassing even you wouldn’t attempt to defend it.


In any case I am willing to give in to his trap...

Even you must be allowed your foolishness; this comment is deserved, sinve you're willing to deliberately walk into what you call a trap; some people do it, by entering into some irreversible trap; they call it matyrdom; familiar, no? In any case, you have no other choice; having failed at reading and understanding rather simple and straighforward Crucible rules, you reinforce the presentation of yourself as religionoid, and one of a quite backward ideology at that.


...if he can come to terms with the observations many made with regard to his motives and if he can clarify with good submission,

As I’ve been consistent in writing, my original submission is all you’ll get. I will not write anything beyond what has already been written about motives. But one thing you could be sure of: my overall motive was to make out your dead, illiterate murderer prophet as a short-sighted, megalomaniac and foolish fellow; nothing does this well than this case of dogs. The same will be true of anyone blindly following him.


my next post here will be a step forward toward answering the question by a detailed analysis of myself( since I am among the issues), Islam, Dogs, Blind and what I consider to be the correct jurisprudential opinion regarding Dogs and The Blind, in Islam according to tradition.

Get on with with, Khalil boy; get on with it. And, as you do that, I'll hope you'll offer thoughts, not recitals by rote of things you've crammed from the Maliki school of thought - where all things found in nature is presumed to be pure unless proven otherwise - (the other time you mentioned "thought", it was as part of "school of thought"; this is sth of a chain, as in the chain of thought slavery).


But let him know that my honest opinion will never support the opinion of those poor Muslim taxi drivers of his neighborhood as he seems to have concluded I would. But he may learn from it why in every culture, people do not want to be described as dogs as in the popular American way of saying "son of a b**tch. the word is even strong enough to be rejected by the program used to code this site.

Get on with it. Did you give a thought to your comments above? I'll save my comment. Were you to proceed along the line above, you'd better be served to simply vomit what you've crammed. What you've written above isn't only pedestrian, it's a deeper hole you're digging: it indicts your religion, and your favourite prophet, and all those who have submitted to backward thinking. While you're at it, why not add colour: what's it, exactly, with black dogs? And, what is it about the saliva of dogs that violates ritual purity?

DeepThought
Mar 5, 2008, 12:00 AM
Ikeji

What you ask for would be no debate, simply a monoluge/diatribe. Not the purpose of the Crucible.

Fjord,
Thanks

ikechiji
Mar 5, 2008, 12:38 AM
Ikeji
What you ask for would be no debate, simply a monoluge/diatribe. Not the purpose of the Crucible.


DT,

Fjord came up with a one-sentence proposition: "Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs"

Khalil could also respond with a single sentence: "Islam does not discriminate against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs"

So where is the debate in that?

The proponent must lead off the debate with an argument supporting his position which his opponent will respond to. Anything else is grandstanding!

DeepThought
Mar 5, 2008, 12:47 AM
Ikeji,
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

The proposed opponent refused to take up the challenge of the debate. Are you asking that he be arrested and forced?

ikechiji
Mar 5, 2008, 12:59 AM
Ikeji,
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

The proposed opponent refused to take up the challenge of the debate. Are you asking that he be arrested and forced?

Mmm - I thought that while Khalil refused to answer the initial questions posed by Fjord, he was still willing to engage in a debate. Allright, let's wait for Khalil to restate his position.

amakama
Mar 5, 2008, 03:38 AM
Ikeji,
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

The proposed opponent refused to take up the challenge of the debate. Are you asking that he be arrested and forced?

i personally have never heard or participated in any kind of debate where the basics of what ikechiji said were not followed. it's that simple.

someone asserts and provides supporting evidence. someone disagrees and provides supporting evidence.

that is how it starts. but sha, leave it to folks to redefine the fundamentals of a debate.

at the end of the day, i can see it's more about Fjord vs. Khalil, christian vs. "psychotic" muslim than the topic itself.

Fjord
Mar 5, 2008, 04:38 AM
Khalil wrote:


... my next post here will be a step forward toward answering the question by a detailed analysis of myself( since I am among the issues), Islam, Dogs, Blind and what I consider to be the correct jurisprudential opinion regarding Dogs and The Blind, in Islam according to tradition.

When're you going to fulfill those words. Waiting on you, Khalil boy. Take all the time you need; gather yourself, your recall, and thoughts - if there're any.

In any case, you'll be getting hit by another debate topic elsewhere.

Khalil
Mar 5, 2008, 10:11 AM
Mmm - I thought that while Khalil refused to answer the initial questions posed by Fjord, he was still willing to engage in a debate. Allright, let's wait for Khalil to restate his position.

Ikechiji,

Thanks for your observation alongside many others like Amakama, with regard to the proposition by Fjord my position is this clear that Islam does not discriminate against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.

If he does not want to add anything to his proposition save the questions he asked and made a claim above that:


As I’ve been consistent in writing, my original submission is all you’ll get. I will not write anything beyond what has already been written about motives. But one thing you could be sure of: my overall motive was to make out your dead, illiterate murderer prophet as a short-sighted, megalomaniac and foolish fellow; nothing does this well than this case of dogs. The same will be true of anyone blindly following him.


I'll go ahead now and make out something from what he has been writing as not logical and pointedly clear for after his initial proposition in this sentence Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs, he followed by a series of questions and statement of aims, among which he said, "a few progressive Muslim clerics and scholars support reform in this matter." This he did not do by making it clear if the reforms being done is within Islamic principles or not, since if it can be done within Islamic principles that should nullify the thesis and of course the claim that,Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs, since it is within this Islam that one can find the reason to stop the alleged discrimination.

Apart from that he also said he would prove I am not among those who are pushing for those reforms. That also he has not substantiated so far.

In that I went even as far as saying in post #16 of this thread that in as much as he can straighten and reconcile his argument regarding myself, those 'few Muslim reformers' and the proposed topic, I'll go ahead and answer his questions but so far he has not done that.

I also found contradictions and inconsistencies in his claims when he admitted to me in post #4 of this thread, of not being an authority in Islam enough for him to come up with a comprehensive take on the issue but he is rather "just a humble fellow doing my bit in the factory; but clear enough to see religious injustice where one exists." Well we we don't know something enough why conclude it is not just enough? But unfortunately he committed himself in post #12 by saying to Palamedes, "I am not on bad authority. There are court cases, and transcripts to back this up."

He also said elsewhere the reason these Muslims drivers give for their actions(inactions) is they are allergic to dogs. So does that establish a case against Islam or myself in this debate? No. At least it shows those Muslims as doing what they are doing not because of their Islam but rather because of other things according Fjord's authority.

At another point, and specifically post #18, he said:


And, be sure, I've no case against Islam, really; but retain the right to denounce and reject any one of any religion who hesitates to condemn in uncertain terms acts of personal violence committed in the name of any religion; if your religion falls into the mix, too bad.

So in this case one will ask why the proposition in that way from the onset?

And since by your admittance your case here is not against Islam which impliedly will mean you take it to be good enough but you don't like the ways of some of its adherents like Khalil and your taxi drivers (both without substance), your statements here against its prophet :

"my overall motive was to make out your dead, illiterate murderer prophet as a short-sighted, megalomaniac and foolish fellow."

is grossly unjustified and I'll here call on the moderator of this debate to call you to order by pointing it to your understanding that you can drive home your points without attacking the person of prophet of Islam.

Or is bigotism, intolerance and the use of gutter language in cyberspace, the monopoly of those who do not profess Islam?

This is where you should begin to address issues of injustice to causes, ideologies and individuals. While I await you to address the several inconsistencies and contradictions that appeared in the many things you posted here.

Finally, even though not knowing what you stand for in your religion, here I will let you know that a dutiful Muslim is expected to be just at any cost according to God through the mouth of his Prophet in these words:

O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty to Allah. For Allah is informed of what you do. (Qur'an: 5:8)



Khalilurrahman

Fjord
Mar 5, 2008, 07:33 PM
I'll go ahead now and make out something from what he has been writing as not logical and pointedly clear for after his initial proposition in this sentence Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs, he followed by a series of questions and statement of aims, among which he said, "a few progressive Muslim clerics and scholars support reform in this matter." This he did not do by making it clear if the reforms being done is within Islamic principles or not, since if it can be done within Islamic principles that should nullify the thesis and of course the claim that,Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs, since it is within this Islam that one can find the reason to stop the alleged discrimination.

In any system, even one quite perverted and backward,, you’ll always find people who have a different opinion, if you looked hard enough (for example, this brave Bahraini woman is a shinning example (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gfhZpW_tGbc&feature=related). Even in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, there are lawyers fighting the government for human rights; so, it is, in our corner. One of the most outspoken clerics in the case referred to now has round-the clock police protection; he was aware of this consequence; his family has been forced to move. Why is this? It is clear that he was engaging in independent thought, and was submitting to the sort of re-interpretation of your sacred text that Salman Rushdie brilliantly proposed in parts of the book that got him the fatwa of death by the Ayatollah, who, quite fittingly, expired; Rushdie lives, a testame4nt of our triumph. No, this cleric’s interpretation was innovative; for your benefit, he isn’t even of the Maliki school of thought. The proposition isn’t nullified.


Apart from that he also said he would prove I am not among those who are pushing for those reforms. That also he has not substantiated so far.
This needs no substantiation. The very first post (in which the typo of “5”, for “e” was addressed in a later post) should have hinted what was been driven at. If you don’t get it, then I’m unable to help you. You must read and re-read the post until – with some luck – you understand it.


In that I went even as far as saying in post #16 of this thread that in as much as he can straighten and reconcile his argument regarding myself, those 'few Muslim reformers' and the proposed topic, I'll go ahead and answer his questions but so far he has not done that.
You wouldn’t have been in the mix; but you paint almost every response on this board with the awful colour of your religion. Not even after you’d been carefully advised against it. Many people are religious, yet, no one comes with it in this rude, right-in-your-face manner; but you do. How can you then escape scorn for such foolish behaviour? If indeed you support reform, stop dancing around it, make it plain. At which point there’ll be one first assignment for you: a visit to the awfully daft Mallam Judge Isah (http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0tT9QhIIlM), who is so indoctrinated he finds no embarrassment in saying on record that evidence could be disregarded simply because the giver of the evidence has no - how to say it - male equipment.


I also found contradictions and inconsistencies in his claims when he admitted to me in post #4 of this thread, of not being an authority in Islam enough for him to come up with a comprehensive take on the issue but he is rather "just a humble fellow doing my bit in the factory; but clear enough to see religious injustice where one exists." Well we we don't know something enough why conclude it is not just enough? But unfortunately he committed himself in post #12 by saying to Palamedes, "I am not on bad authority. There are court cases, and transcripts to back this up."
How come you misunderstand simple, straightforward things? No, I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar. Yes, I do claim to work in a factory. Yes, I do claim to be a humble fellow. Yes, I do claim to be able to sight – and fight against – injustice. Yes, I do claim to be able to reason. Yes, I do claim to be able to out-reason scholars, especially of the Islamic hue (this is a fair boast, make of it what you may; just as I’ve helped more learned and accomplished fellows in our factory with quite complicated stuff, I have learned amazing things from quite not-so-educated fellow, at the same place; being able to reason is something specific education could enhance; but rote learning, the sort propagated in madrassahs and schools where a man such as Mallam Isah is the expert, kills the brain, essentially). I could explain that to you if you’re not clear though. And Yes, I did admit in response to Palamedes that I have knowledge of the view of some clerics and scholars on this issue; I also did admit having researched the matter; I tacitly admitted being privy to the work of a lawyer who knew nothing about Islam to begin with, and who could now – thanks to the help of non-professional lawyers – command a respectable understanding due to this case.

Now, which of those is contradictory? It appears years of cramming your favourite religious text has corrupted parts of the brain needed for logical processing of bits of information


He also said elsewhere the reason these Muslims drivers give for their actions(inactions) is they are allergic to dogs. So does that establish a case against Islam or myself in this debate? No. At least it shows those Muslims as doing what they are doing not because of their Islam but rather because of other things according Fjord's authority.

Selective reading, short-term memory amnesia, and a trouble with reading comprehension. I said “a reason”, or “one reason”, not, “the reason”. Wake up, if it’ll help you! And, did you forget to read the part where I submitted that science was employed to disprove the claims? That's too much for you to understand, no? Some allergies could be faked; the one for hair was - through some ingenuity, one should add - knocked off the table. Bonus: 100% of the drivers claiming allergy backed down; it took only the verbal threat of scientific examination. Chew on that.


At another point, and specifically post #18, he said:
And, be sure, I've no case against Islam, really; but retain the right to denounce and reject any one of any religion who hesitates to condemn in uncertain terms acts of personal violence committed in the name of any religion; if your religion falls into the mix, too bad.
[So in this case one will ask why the proposition in that way from the onset? ]
So in this case why not bring here a proposition against any of one of any religion who does what you don't like instead of making a blanket statement about Islam being the sole discriminant in this issue?

Good question; I’ll give you your due. Here’s the reason: I made the statement because, we may not know, there may be some religion or tradition out there that prohibits the same. I do not claim to know the practices of all traditions or religions. Were any one of those to come up, a similar (if not exactly identical) case will be mounted against such. In that sense, the case isn’t against Islam per se: we’ll leave it all alone if it doesn’t interfere with the quality of life of people. We have Muslim friends; we don’t quarrel. But, be sure that there’ll be a quarrel to pick once they start the sort of discrimination highlighted on this thread. Now, I hope it’s clear. Is it, or is it not?


And since by your admittance your case here is not against Islam which impliedly will mean you take it to be good enough but you don't like the ways of some of its adherents like Khalil and your taxi drivers (both without substance), your statements here against its prophet :"my overall motive was to make out your dead, illiterate murderer prophet as a short-sighted, megalomaniac and foolish fellow." is grossly unjustified and I'll here call on the moderator of this debate to call you to order by pointing it to your understanding that you can drive home your points without attacking the person of prophet of Islam.

- Why is it unjustified?
- I said he’s dead; is he not?
- I said he was illiterate, isn’t this true? To the extent that he couldn’t write; he must be described as an illiterate man. Do you dispute this?
- I gave him credit as a prophet; what’s your problem with that?
- I called him short-sighted. Do you argue this? No, I didn’t mean short-sightedness in the medical sense; I don’t think that’s bad in itself. Look, we’re talking of a man who supported the maltreatment of women – essentially classifying them as property - , and who never had the good sense to reject the betrothal of a 9 (6, I should correct myself, eh) year old girl at age 54 years; it’s a kindness to simply describe him as “short-sighted”; there are harsher words that’ll fit the bill.
- I called him foolish: see directly above; “foolish” is still mild.
- Megalomaniac: c’mon! He sure was delusional. First, he got an angel dictating a book to him. Second, he rode on a winged horse over some long distance. Quite a grand delusion! You shouldn’t argue against that.


Or is bigotism, intolerance and the use of gutter language in cyberspace, the monopoly of those who do not profess Islam?

Nice edit. But I'll answer you still: see the above. Show that any of those descriptions were gratuitous. You consider them gutter language; I say they're correctly descriptive, and kindly mild, considering what your man has been up to. You forget again: when it comes to male mammals, whoever they claim to be, we describe them as they are; they're not shielded because they claim prophethood. To be sure this isn't discrimination against your favourite cleric, any prophet with this sort of awful behaviour will come up for such descriptions. You may remember Prophet Dawood, the Bible's David, eh? He was an awful man too: a murderer and adulterer who got quite a clean pass from the Hebrew God. But this isn't about him; this is about your guy, who's worse, by all accounts.


This is where you should begin to address issues of injustice to causes, ideologies and individuals. While I await you to address the several inconsistencies and contradictions that appeared in the many things you posted here.
I have addressed them point by point as above. And, as already pointed out, one has been kind in these descriptions; you should agree and move on.


Finally, even though not knowing what you stand for in your religion,
You score positive points for this admission. You had in an earlier post taken a different position; your backtracking and return to reason is commended.


...here I will let you know that a dutiful Muslim is expected to be just at any cost according to God through the mouth of his Prophet in these words:
You’re beginning to attempt sounding human; this is the feeling I get when some of the clerics begin to talk to us, like they do in the public; tragically, they have different agendas behind closed doors. We know words matter, so good words are commended. But they must be matched with real action. Look at the items here: is this justice? Khalil, is this justice? You have some influence in your corner of earth; what are you doing with it? Where do you stand? We won’t be discussing here if your position was clear and declared like some of your fellow religious travellers, whom we know it is impossible to discuss with. But, you come here with the message of Islam, offering a demo of the true version; do you also unleash the true version of hell later? You must match your words, and scholarship with action. Is it justice to accept a woman’s allegation of rape only if there are four witnesses?


O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty to Allah. For Allah is informed of what you do. (Qur'an: 5:8)

The problem with this is that “equity” is defined according to the tenets of your religion. If a man confesses to theft, and submits to Sharia, and accepts the punishment of the amputation of his sinning hand; the hand is amputated, right? That’s equity in this religion, right? Well, we call that cruel and unusual punishment. So, while these words may be beautiful, they mean nothing and are contradictory to reason. Imagine, the same mouth that said ‘let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal justly’ also dictated these:

First, a “O you believe” quotation: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people (Qu’ran 5:51); --- How do you want to spin that?

O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you. - (Qu’ran 4:29); They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper - (Qu’ran 4:89); -- these are notes about Women.

And, here’s a related point, since you’ve clarified that you’re solidly behind the Sunnah (for the uninitiated, Sunnah is the exotic word for the deeds of the prophet; essentially, it means copying the prophet’s deed; this could worry to the point of exertion: if he relieves nature, #2 that is, head into the white bowl, then you help yourself for eternity by doing the same; I’m not making this up, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. There’s a wel-known Sunnah that comes up for discussion whenever we’re gathered with our serious Islamic friends: how do you kill a camel? I’m throwing this to Khalil, and hoping he will exert his religious might in ambiguously considering this very important act of animal execution. You should not be surprised that the relevant Sunnah is unambiguous). How could you copy and reproduce the ways of a fault-ful man and yet be just?

Fjord
Mar 5, 2008, 07:50 PM
Er, I hope video evidence isn't forbidden at the Crucible.

If it is intended that it is forbidden, please, let's know ;-)

.

Khalil
Mar 6, 2008, 09:14 AM
deleted post

Khalil
Mar 6, 2008, 09:24 AM
As I made it clear in post #28 that I would answer my opponent's questions in the first post once he is clear on his motivations and since he has done it in these words:


"my overall motive was to make out your dead, illiterate murderer prophet as a short-sighted, megalomaniac and foolish fellow."

I intend now to address the questions the way I feel my Prophet would have done if confronted with the same situation about 14 centuries ago after all it is about methodology not rigid laws and that is his legacy. Now it is left to my opponent at the end of all these to prove how the prophet qualified for a short-sighted fellow, murderer or a megalomaniac by human standard.

Your question1: Is it allowed for a Muslim to give a lift to a blind person who is assisted by a seeing-eye dog?

Answer: Yes, depending of their circumstance as much as No, depending of their circumstance!

Your question2 : Does the breed of the dog matter?


Answer: No. Depending of the circumstance.

Your question3: If the answer to 1) is yes, under what conditions? If no, under what conditions? Are there any further exceptions?

Answer:

a. Yes they can do it for their personal gain or out of their own desire to help the weak under the condition they think the weak need their help and in that case not only the blind with their dogs but the dogs too can be helped as it is reported that the Prophet said:

Narrated Abu Huraira, The Prophet said, "A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise."
Bukhari, Volume 1, No 174.


In the absence of the above reasons, they still can also do it if they are forced to do it by laws, arms, or other compelling conditions as it is reported that the prophet of Islam says:

“Allah has extended His mercy on to me and my followers on account of what they do in error ; what they are compelled to do; what they fail to fulfill due to absentmindedness.” Ibn Majah/ Baihaqiy


b. No, if they don’t want to by reason that could be personal or perceptive depending of their personal gauge of cost/benefit analysis spiritually and temporally.

Your question4: Does your answer change if the seeing-eye dog is guaranteed a legal right of entry by law?

Answer: No. Depending on the prevailing condition

Your question5: What advice would you – as a self-declared expert at Islamic Law - give to a professional driver who is also a Muslim who has sought your religious advice on this matter?

Answer: I will advice them to act according to the condition they find themselves, dictates of their conscience in relation to their circumstance and the effective tool of cost/benefit analysis both spiritually and temporally.

Your question6: What would your submission be were you to give a submission in respect of 1) and 3) in a court of law.

Answer: This will depend on my place in the court, the nature of the case, and other prevailing considerations since each case in a valid court of law is always unique, Sharia court or not.

NOTE 01: In Islamic jurisprudence, nothing is absolutely forbidden at all cost and nothing is absolutely legit at all cost. It maintains that even though truth maybe absolute, right or wrong, good or evil may not be absolute. As such Islamic jurisprudence maintains absoluteness of truth but says practices may not be absolute.

There are concepts of Dharurah(avoiding the worst) and Maslahah(attaining the best). That is to say Muslims, Muslim states or Islamic states are allowed to act or make laws in the light of the clear and likely outcome of their decision. If it promotes the good according to Islamic standard then it can be done even while it appears to be bad at face value. And it cannot be done even though it appears to be good but hurts the general interest of the public according to Islamic standard. This is why killing a human being is not good but it turns out to be when a particular human being in question turns out to be a nuisance that cannot be tolerated or cured. This is why rulings on war situations may differ from those in peace situations even then authorities should be the ones left with effective handling of such situations except in extreme cases of self defense as will naturally be dictated by circumstances and the elaborate justification or lack thereof of attorneys. One does not need to be a Muslim to understand this and its the reason why we believe there is fusion between reason and revelation.

It is also why a Muslim is prohibited from eating carcasses or donkey meat but allowed when there is nothing nothing to eat and survive on. In such situations even human flesh can be eaten when found to be the only alternative, but not killed purposely to be eaten.

Thus the saying of the Prophet considering the likely error of judgment that can befall an individual Muslim human being in deducting juristic position:

The judge who judges with good intentions and got it right in the sight of God will be awarded two ounces of rewards in the sight of God and he who does that and err will be awarded only an ounce in the site of God in as much as his intentions remain good.


An authentic Hadith of the Prophet reported by Bukhari

After all he was the one who said:

In the sight of God actions are only judged according to intentions!

An authentic Hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim collection.

In line of this, juristic deductions in Islam are arrived at, considering:

Firstly, the Qur’an, which has survived till today as something that has never been corrupted, the book also called itself Furqan, which means the criterion of judging what is right and what is wrong.

Secondly, since the Furqan is the one which says, addressing Muslims : "Certainly you have in the messenger of Allah most excellent pattern of conduct", so on the practicalities of life in Islam, the Sunna(way or example) of the Prophet, is another source of measure. The Sunna then are recorded in Hadith, that is the saying of the Holy Prophet. It becomes the Sunna, meaning the right way, when it is substances are proven to be actually said or done by the Holy Prophet as much as they do not contradict the explicit meaning of relevant Qur’anic texts.

Then Thirdly, the consensus of the learned ones among informed Muslims.

There are many books that delineated most on the concepts and practices of juristic deductions known as Usul-Alfiqh, which “ is a science in which reason and revelation come together, where considered opinion is accompanied by received law. Yet, al-Usul Fiqh does not rely purely on reason in a way that would be unacceptable to revealed law, nor is it based simply on the kind of blind acceptance that would not be supported by reason. Hence, the science of al - usul al-fiqh has been called the ‘Philosophy of Islam’”. Many books have been written on the subject but two are referenced here:

First: The pioneer book, Al-risalah, by Imam Shafi’i in the 9th century A.C.
Second: The attempt to bring to the notice of Western Social Scientists this rich practice of Islamic law, in the book, Source Methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence, by Dr. Taha Jabir Alwani

The book has a brief synopsis as this:


usul al-fiqh is a science which is deeply embedded in the
islamic experience and one which, thanks to its methods
and concerns, helped generate an empirical trend in Muslim
culture, in turn benefiting western thinking. itself a
creation of influences from within and without, al-usul,
often called “the philosophy of islam,” invites both reason
and revelation to work for the harmony and wellbeing
of human society.

although the science of al-usul is mainly concerned with
legal matters, its range and the arsenal of tools it uses
makes it attractive to students of Islamic jurisprudence as
well as to other scholars of islamic knowledge and culture.
the difficulties it poses are inevitable. this book,
however, attempts to simplify this “most important
method of research ever devised by islamic thought” during
its most creative period, and bring it to the understanding
and appreciation of the modern learner, while
underscoring its importance and relevance to the world
of islam today.


NOTE02: For myself who has been labeled constantly a bigot by my opponent without any concrete proof, I will say my background In Islam is not more than what follows:

I was born a Muslim, by Muslim parents who have a history of over a millennium in Islamic scholarship in their journey as global citizens from Yemen, Sudan, Kukawa in the present Borno State in Nigeria , Kajuru(18th century) in the present Southern Kaduna region in Northern Nigeria, to Zaria(19th century) in the present Northern Kaduna State in Northern Nigeria. My family house has been a Madrassa, an advanced school of learning in the science of Islamic jurisprudence since time immemorial when scholars from different countries and states in Nigeria come to study Islamic jurisprudence. My grandfather who died in 1938 served as the grand jurist of Zazzau Emirate and authored many books among which the treatise, Al- Maslahatul A’amal, Making the Best of One’s Good Works, survived.

I started studying Islam as a minor, since I was born in a Madrassa, from the rudimental to the complex issues in it and I had the benefit of getting the Western type of education from primary school to being a science student at secondary level until now in my position as a double graduate of first, Sociology and then Computer Science. I understand Arabic, English and Hausa and try my hands in English, Arabic and Hausa poetry. I take great interest in the science of textual criticism developed by Muslim scholars of the second century of Hijra, in the course of seeking ways to authenticate the reported sayings of the Holy Prophet. I also prefer among the Western intellectuals literary critics of substance against those of form. To this end I identify with some of them like the French Saint Beuv(19th century) who postulates that understanding what people write is necessarily hinged on the understanding of their historical and psychological background, as against Mercel Prost(19th century) and people like V.S. Naipaul(still alive) who see the book, the written word as the perfect symbol of the reality.

Among social critics I identify with the deconstruction school of thought of Derrida(still), Searl and others who believe that the element in ones background are necessary seen in what they say, do or write and thus, the claims of many writers like Charles Darwin may not necessarily be scientific but rather informed by other natural claims of their circumstances of birth, learning and upbringing.

In all I find good creative synergy in the claims of philosophers like Thomas Carlyle, et al, who view history and events in the light of personalities and that of philosophers like Herbert Spencer who ascribe the ups and downs of history to conditions and circumstances.

I have spent my entire life so far, among other things, discussing religious issues both intra and inter as much as delineating on serious paradigmatic social and philosophical concepts and constructs that have been shaping human perception of themselves and the world they live in. I hold that what matters most to human beings is value and and identity but nothing else.

As the scholars of civilization agree that the strongest and diminutive resting point of human identity is religion, I believe the destiny of the world and its quest for idealism should find basis in exploring the powers of religion with the view of coming up with a viable synergy that will prove beneficial to all.

So in as much as some discussions will not require identification with any of the ideologies many do. And in that I believe I am a Muslim first and those who want to always shield the aspect of their ideology by written or verbal expressions should know that they cannot escape the observation of an observer. It is better always we make bold at discussing. For it is only then the ray of hope will glimmer through the lenses of our bestial hearts.

I don’t know what above can qualify me with the label, a bigot, for there are many with different identifications that should bother my opponent.

Khalilurrahman

Khalil
Mar 6, 2008, 10:57 AM
In any system, even one quite perverted and backward,, you’ll always find people who have a different opinion, if you looked hard enough (for example.....

Even in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, there are lawyers fighting the government for human rights; so, it is, in our corner. One of the most outspoken clerics in the case referred to now has round-the clock police protection; he was aware of this consequence; his family has been forced to move. Why is this? It is clear that he was engaging in independent thought, and was submitting to the sort of re-interpretation of your sacred text that Salman Rushdie brilliantly proposed in parts of the book that got him the fatwa of death by the Ayatollah, who, quite fittingly, expired; Rushdie lives, a testame4nt of our triumph. No, this cleric’s interpretation was innovative; for your benefit, he isn’t even of the Maliki school of thought. The proposition isn’t nullified.

In that I will still want to maintain that your thesis is nullified since in any case where we find a definition of Islam which accommodates certain behavior, Islam should not be termed as the culprit but rather the individual who is committed to such behavior. But in your proposition you clearly said:

Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs

and you did not show yet how Islam did just that!

For that lady when I meet her I'll discuss her points with her in a debating mode far better than this one. In as much as she can display the capacity of remaining civil and pointedly clear. I do alot of that with my Muslim brothers from both the Sunni and Shi'i devides.

For activism against government in the issues regarding human right, the activist usually invoke the sacred text of the religion to make home their cases since we all agree to be human beings who may not get something right at certain points or may use our whims. Find in my post above some considerations that can come from Islamic principles of jurisprudence which when used can be enough to attend to the cases you reported here, accurately or not much so.



This needs no substantiation. The very first post (in which the typo of “5”, for “e” was addressed in a later post) should have hinted what was been driven at. If you don’t get it, then I’m unable to help you. You must read and re-read the post until – with some luck – you understand it.


No. Fjord, clarity matters here please I need to see how I do not belong to Muslims who do want necessary reforms that will accommodate the reality of their situations.


You wouldn’t have been in the mix; but you paint almost every response on this board with the awful colour of your religion. Not even after you’d been carefully advised against it.

Or is it that you've chosen to see me in that light always forgetting what you have as your avatar? Or is perception now your exclusive grace de anointed that what you think, you believe should be the opinion of all? I thought you are the brand of a Christian who believes in freedom of thoughts and expression, which makes you forget that there are multiple identities here but that of Khalil is the only one that deserves your intolerance and maximum terror disposition.


Many people are religious, yet, no one comes with it in this rude, right-in-your-face manner; but you do. How can you then escape scorn for such foolish behaviour?


Still your definition and observation! And I have mine on you and many other posters, it is only that I have internalized the concept of live and let live here. And whenever I feel like putting on something about my religion here I'll do it. I'll even be participating when people are discussing Christianity by telling them certain things are wrong when I feel they surely are.


If indeed you support reform, stop dancing around it, make it plain. At which point there’ll be one first assignment for you: a visit to the awfully daft who is so indoctrinated he finds no embarrassment in saying on record that evidence could be disregarded simply because the giver of the evidence has no - how to say it - male equipment.

That is between you and whoever that person may be. For me I have outlined my methodology for your reading above and I remain a devoted Muslim.


How come you misunderstand simple, straightforward things? No, I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar. Yes, I do claim to work in a factory. Yes, I do claim to be a humble fellow. Yes, I do claim to be able to sight – and fight against – injustice. Yes, I do claim to be able to reason. Yes, I do claim to be able to out-reason scholars, especially of the Islamic hue (this is a fair boast, make of it what you may; just as I’ve helped more learned and accomplished fellows in our factory with quite complicated stuff, I have learned amazing things from quite not-so-educated fellow, at the same place; being able to reason is something specific education could enhance; but rote learning, the sort propagated in madrassahs and schools where a man such as Mallam Isah is the expert, kills the brain, essentially).

Well I am product of a Madrassa but you can use your out-reasoning capacity here to demolish each of what I say. When you have issues with Mallam Isa, the person of your video, concerning what you think is illogic on his part, go and meet him. It is him speaking. But for myself I am here before you. Let you prove that my Islam or Islam generally discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.



Good question; I’ll give you your due. Here’s the reason: I made the statement because, we may not know, there may be some religion or tradition out there that prohibits the same. I do not claim to know the practices of all traditions or religions. Were any one of those to come up, a similar (if not exactly identical) case will be mounted against such. In that sense, the case isn’t against Islam per se: we’ll leave it all alone if it doesn’t interfere with the quality of life of people. We have Muslim friends; we don’t quarrel. But, be sure that there’ll be a quarrel to pick once they start the sort of discrimination highlighted on this thread. Now, I hope it’s clear. Is it, or is it not?

So are you now nullifying your thesis by your self. It is a practice you are against that may be garbed with religious cloak by individuals. And what I defend here is not religious practice of some individuals but my religious values and its methodologies and in that case you should know that you have mis represented your thesis which I come here to anti-thesise.


- Why is it unjustified?
- I said he’s dead; is he not?
- I said he was illiterate, isn’t this true? To the extent that he couldn’t write; he must be described as an illiterate man. Do you dispute this?
- I gave him credit as a prophet; what’s your problem with that?
- I called him short-sighted. Do you argue this? No, I didn’t mean short-sightedness in the medical sense; I don’t think that’s bad in itself. Look, we’re talking of a man who supported the maltreatment of women – essentially classifying them as property - , and who never had the good sense to reject the betrothal of a 9 (6, I should correct myself, eh) year old girl at age 54 years; it’s a kindness to simply describe him as “short-sighted”; there are harsher words that’ll fit the bill.
- I called him foolish: see directly above; “foolish” is still mild.
- Megalomaniac: c’mon! He sure was delusional. First, he got an angel dictating a book to him. Second, he rode on a winged horse over some long distance. Quite a grand delusion! You shouldn’t argue against that.


Yes it is unjustified since it is not him we are discussing but rather principles that border on practices and as such the discussion can be formally and reasonably put without ascribing label to him. Some one yesterday posted something like "foolish fjord", his own description of your behaviour here, right after my post, I can see now that his entire post has been deleted.

Yes my Prophet was literate in the modern sense of the word, it is only that he did not know how to write. After all it is the context and nuances of the flow of our arguments that betray our intentions. That is what I see in your that your particular reference as much as what the administration of this site saw in the other poster's line of reason that they deleted his post.

Even then what you all said about my prophet, from illiteracy, shortsightedness, foolishness and delusion are unsubstantiated here. You can come forward and do it now or open another thread to debate it. Otherwise they remain mere assaults, slanderous and polemical by all standards of reasonable discourses in civilised worlds like yours.


You’re beginning to attempt sounding human;

Here we are again with obsessional definitions and labels. When did you become the one on whose authority humans are known? Thought freedom says others can be human in their own way?



The problem with this is that “equity” is defined according to the tenets of your religion. If a man confesses to theft, and submits to Sharia, and accepts the punishment of the amputation of his sinning hand; the hand is amputated, right?


Okay, what is theft according to the tenets of Islam? Before we come to ask you what is Sharia?


That’s equity in this religion, right? Well, we call that cruel and unusual punishment. So, while these words may be beautiful, they mean nothing and are contradictory to reason. Imagine, the same mouth that said ‘let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal justly’ also dictated these:

First, a “O you believe” quotation: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people (Qu’ran 5:51); --- How do you want to spin that?

O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you. - (Qu’ran 4:29); They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper - (Qu’ran 4:89); -- these are notes about Women.

Yes of course the mouth said that also but shouldn't you just employ any tool of socio-literary criticism, developed by the society you live in and give a just interpretation to what you've quoted in order to arrive at a fair interpretation?

Or what do you think of what Christ is quoted to have said in the Bible here:

Luke 14;26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life as he cannot be my disciple"

Mathew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

Luke 12:51
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division"




And, here’s a related point, since you’ve clarified that you’re solidly behind the Sunnah (for the uninitiated, Sunnah is the exotic word for the deeds of the prophet; essentially, it means copying the prophet’s deed; this could worry to the point of exertion: if he relieves nature, #2 that is, head into the white bowl, then you help yourself for eternity by doing the same; I’m not making this up, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. There’s a wel-known Sunnah that comes up for discussion whenever we’re gathered with our serious Islamic friends: how do you kill a camel? I’m throwing this to Khalil, and hoping he will exert his religious might in ambiguously considering this very important act of animal execution. You should not be surprised that the relevant Sunnah is unambiguous). How could you copy and reproduce the ways of a fault-ful man and yet be just?

Yes, Fjord, the answer is in the post I made above and I hope you'll be able to come to terms with the truth that mine is a methodology that often accommodates norms and practices that can be foreign or unknown during the time of the prophet since all the devices necessary to achieve that are there inbuilt in the prophetic Sunna(Way).

Khalilurrahman

bubbles
Mar 8, 2008, 03:08 AM
Ooh, we're getting to the juicy bit!

Fjord
Mar 8, 2008, 07:17 AM
I intend now to address the questions the way I feel my Prophet would have done if confronted with the same situation about 14 centuries ago after all it is about methodology not rigid laws and that is his legacy. Now it is left to my opponent at the end of all these to prove how the prophet qualified for a short-sighted fellow, murderer or a megalomaniac by human standard.

Banning dogs that'll be useful in later centuries is short-sightedness; killing people who disagree with your religious views is murder; claiming to have flown over long distances on wings of a horse, and claiming to have heard repeatedly from an angel is delusional. These are all human standards; your man fails on all counts. He married a prepubertal girl, didn't he? Today, your religious co-travellers are peddling this ideology: see this video evidence: fast forward to the third minute: [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI"] Marry 9-yr olds[/url]


Your question1: Is it allowed for a Muslim to give a lift to a blind person who is assisted by a seeing-eye dog? Answer: Yes, depending of their circumstance as much as No, depending of their circumstance!
What circumstance? Give an example.


Your question2 : Does the breed of the dog matter? Answer: No. Depending of the circumstance.
What circumstance? Give an example.


Your question3: If the answer to 1) is yes, under what conditions? If no, under what conditions? Are there any further exceptions? Answer: a. Yes they can do it for their personal gain or out of their own desire to help the weak under the condition they think the weak need their help and in that case not only the blind with their dogs but the dogs too can be helped...

The exception being when expressly forbidden by your religion, no? Specifically, what's it with balck seeing-eye dogs and their saliva? Is the saliva filth or not? If yes, why? If no, why? What about the saliva of other animals? What abotu your earlier justification for the figurative use of "dog" in languages?


... as it is reported that the Prophet said: Narrated Abu Huraira, The Prophet said, "A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise." Bukhari, Volume 1, No 174.

Who is Abu Huraira? When was he born, and when did he die? How did he know what the prophet said? How did Bukari come to know of this report? Do you subscribe to all of Bukhari's writings?


In the absence of the above reasons, they still can also do it if they are forced to do it by laws, arms, or other compelling conditions ...

We understand why someone compelled by arms would attempt self-preservation and comply with rules. We also understand that where the law is enforced, you have no choice whatsoever: you would be deported if you're not a citizen were you to continue to flout legal laws. The above is thus of almost no use. We know because we've made them comply, under the force of losing their jobs; that always works.


... as it is reported that the prophet of Islam says: “Allah has extended His mercy on to me and my followers on account of what they do in error ; what they are compelled to do; what they fail to fulfill due to absentmindedness.” Ibn Majah/ Baihaqiy
Reported by whom? How did this reporter get to know of this event? Do you also subscribe to all the writings of this man? This is a telling quote, if you're able to think about it beyond the smoke screen of religious ideology.


Your question4: Does your answer change if the seeing-eye dog is guaranteed a legal right of entry by law? Answer: No. Depending on the prevailing condition
What prevailing condition? Give an example.


Your question5: What advice would you – as a self-declared expert at Islamic Law - give to a professional driver who is also a Muslim who has sought your religious advice on this matter? Answer: I will advice them to act according to the condition they find themselves, dictates of their conscience in relation to their circumstance and the effective tool of cost/benefit analysis both spiritually and temporally.

Where's an example of this effective (so-called) spiritual tool? Isn't this euphemism for befuddling the reply?


Your question6: What would your submission be were you to give a submission in respect of 1) and 3) in a court of law. Answer: This will depend on my place in the court, the nature of the case, and other prevailing considerations since each case in a valid court of law is always unique, Sharia court or not.

Would your answer in a secular court be different from your answer in a Shar'ia court?


NOTE 01: In Islamic jurisprudence, nothing is absolutely forbidden at all cost and nothing is absolutely legit at all cost. It maintains that even though truth maybe absolute, right or wrong, good or evil may not be absolute. As such Islamic jurisprudence maintains absoluteness of truth but says practices may not be absolute.

This is a lie. Is it forbidden to eat pork or not? Is it forbidden to slaughter a pig in a mosque or not? These extreme examples are given to drive home the point. The issues are seldom of what is absolutely forbidden, they are about what your friends do away from prying eyes and prying questions, and what you preach, not in courts, but where you indoctrinate your own. Below, a documented example: [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE"] Encouraging Crimes [/url]


There are concepts of Dharurah(avoiding the worst) and Maslahah(attaining the best). That is to say Muslims, Muslim states or Islamic states are allowed to act or make laws in the light of the clear and likely outcome of their decision. If it promotes the good according to Islamic standard then it can be done even while it appears to be bad at face value. And it cannot be done even though it appears to be good but hurts the general interest of the public according to Islamic standard. .

Yes, you're correct. And those standards are quite very low and backward. That's why we have Wahabbi states like Saudi Arabia who encourage the marrying-off of prebubescent girls, hitting girls of age 10 who refuse to wear the hijab, and killing Christians and Jews because they're pigs. [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs"] Kill Christians & Jews[/url] And, in case you've missed it, you could also see what children are being taught to do on account of the Danish cartoons.


This is why killing a human being is not good but it turns out to be when a particular human being in question turns out to be a nuisance that cannot be tolerated or cured. This is why rulings on war situations may differ from those in peace situations even then authorities should be the ones left with effective handling of such situations except in extreme cases of self defense as will naturally be dictated by circumstances and the elaborate justification or lack thereof of attorneys. One does not need to be a Muslim to understand this and its the reason why we believe there is fusion between reason and revelation.

"... a nuisance that cannot be tolerated or cured..." Does that also include a 16-year old girl, like the one here: "Chastity Crime" (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/45303-religious-justice-examples-around-world.html) Isn't your religion in a constant state of war against "chastity", homosexuality, Jews, and Christians? Your standard of executing people who are a nuisance is so low it's buried in 6th-century earth; it is one reason we oppose the ideology you peddle.


It is also why a Muslim is prohibited from eating carcasses or donkey meat but allowed when there is nothing nothing to eat and survive on. In such situations even human flesh can be eaten when found to be the only alternative, but not killed purposely to be eaten..

You've got to wonder what sort of dull-mindedness fuels these kinds of brain-dead injunctions: what normal person will eat carcasses of animals when there're other meats available? And who wouldn't submit to the prodddings of survival and eat what is available? Reasonable people know these; that some people have to be so-instructed is a pointer to the mind-numbing, brain-deadness of this ideology.

Fjord
Mar 8, 2008, 07:30 AM
Thus the saying of the Prophet considering the likely error of judgment that can befall an individual Muslim human being in deducting juristic position: The judge who judges with good intentions and got it right in the sight of God will be awarded two ounces of rewards in the sight of God and he who does that and err will be awarded only an ounce in the site of God in as much as his intentions remain good.

One ounce of what?? We have to tell you this is very foolish: to give a 50% reward for zero reason and plenty of good intentions. There are rotten standards fit for the 6th century. In our days, we reprimand the foolish judge who issues a bad judgment on the excuse of good intentions, send him/her on a course, relieve them of duty, if for a while so that they regain the good sense of what they're supposed to be doing. If a man drives a bulldover into your mosque while attempting to pull some earth in front of it, do you award him a prize for good intentions? He's stupid for using a bulldozer; he's stupider for driving it into a building. No prize for good intentions with bad results.


An authentic Hadith of the Prophet reported by Bukhari...
Hadiths have been so battered you have to qualify them as "authentic"; how did you decide this was "authentic"? Because it sounds nice and reasonable?


After all he was the one who said: In the sight of God actions are only judged according to intentions! An authentic Hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim collection.
Let's for once admit this is fine from god's perspective; how does it benefit humans? Apparently, you too would then judge actions based on their intentions; how do you go about doing that? If this is what your Sunnah says, them you must admit it is foolish, and unworkable. Humans, flesh and blood, look at the results; no we don't completely neglect the intentions, but we're not cynical enough to submit to judging actions based on their intentions.


In line of this, juristic deductions in Islam are arrived at, considering:
Firstly, the Qur’an, which has survived till today as something that has never been corrupted, the book also called itself Furqan, which means the criterion of judging what is right and what is wrong.

The above is a reason all education and learning fails people who subscrive to your ideology. The Qu'ran is an obsolete book which recommends cruel and unusual punishments for any number of petty misdeeds. It cannot, and is not the ultimate critierion for judging what is right or wrong. We have seen examples where following that book, along with the hangers-on called the Sunnah and Hadith, is the correct to destruction, ruin, and backwardness.
.

Fjord
Mar 8, 2008, 07:46 AM
Secondly, since the Furqan is the one which says, addressing Muslims : "Certainly you have in the messenger of Allah most excellent pattern of conduct", so on the practicalities of life in Islam, the Sunna(way or example) of the Prophet, is another source of measure. The Sunna then are recorded in Hadith, that is the saying of the Holy Prophet. It becomes the Sunna, meaning the right way, when it is substances are proven to be actually said or done by the Holy Prophet as much as they do not contradict the explicit meaning of relevant Qur'anic texts.
And part of that includes marrying a 9-yr old girl? And beheading people who drink beer? And hit 10-year old girls who refuse to wear a head mask? And murder 16-year ols who want to just be teens? And murder homosexuals? The wordy expositions are meaningless, a vomiting of crammed texts, if they can't be applied to situations today. "Understand this": application matters, not learning by rote.


... like the French Saint Beuv(19th century) who postulates that understanding what people write is necessarily hinged on the understanding of their historical and psychological background, as against Mercel Prost(19th century) and people like V.S. Naipaul(still alive) who see the book, the written word as the perfect symbol of the reality.

Saint Beuv is correct to write what he wrote. But this cannot apply to your favourtie religious text because your text and prophet claim the authorship of an angel, and God. Your prophet, being the ultimate messanger of God, must then propound timeless, immutable, infallible principles. Ordinary humans would be judged by the Saint Beuv standards, but in claiming divine authorship, your ideology loses that consideration. And, we know V.S. Naipaul is alive, as well as we remember that he was dressed in Nobel garb when his continent's turn came, and to the expense of the excellent write Rushdie, who urged a re-interpretation of your favourite ancient text. What would you make of the passage the Ayatollah Khomeini never read, the one deemed offensive?


Among social critics I identify with the deconstruction school of thought of Derrida(still), Searl and others who believe that the element in ones background are necessary seen in what they say, do or write and thus, the claims of many writers like Charles Darwin may not necessarily be scientific but rather informed by other natural claims of their circumstances of birth, learning and upbringing.You've made a fine pick: a Jew who condones anti-Semitism (as defined), and sometimesa closet Nazi and fascist sympathizer. Is Derrida's 'The Gift of Death' also a favourite of yours? Who, pray, is "Searl"? John Searle, we know of. You've been commenting on Darwin for a long time; none of your favourite philosophers came close to expunding our knowledge of life as Darwin did. You don't like it, but he showed, clearly, why your prophet was very mistaken, and, well, delusional.


As the scholars of civilization agree that the strongest and diminutive resting point of human identity is religion, I believe the destiny of the world and its quest for idealism should find basis in exploring the powers of religion with the view of coming up with a viable synergy that will prove beneficial to all.
Your premise is seriously flawed. If your religious efforts have been based on the supposition that you've been attarcted to the most important human identity question, could that not have been that an affirmation was sought for the circumstances of birth? Considering details from the autobiographical sketch, isn't is plausible that a foundation had been laid for a certain ideology to germinate and grow; following that, a scheme had been devised to support the flawed foundations. What scholars of civilization? The Enlightenement showed, without any ambiguity, what place religion must take in human affairs. That an extreme version of the most backward expression of modern religions is making a comeback is a call to arms to those standing on the side of reason and advancement.


So in as much as some discussions will not require identification with any of the ideologies many do. And in that I believe I am a Muslim first and those who want to always shield the aspect of their ideology by written or verbal expressions should know that they cannot escape the observation of an observer. It is better always we make bold at discussing. For it is only then the ray of hope will glimmer through the lenses of our bestial hearts.
I - on the other hand - believe I am human first.

What this means, then is that anything you may have learned from philosophy and sociology takes a back seat because you're "a Muslim first": rigorous study is valid only to the extent that 6th-century texts retain primacy. Primed with some Western-style education, this is the recipe for backwardness, pseudo-scholarship, and a second-hand version of abstruse Derridan rhetoric. We can see why this is dangerous in places where Mallam Isah (introduced in videos above) is chief theorist; or, picture Isah with some more education in philosophy and sociology: the picture we're attempting to paint emerges in its darkest and clearest form. Clearly, the bestial hearts are those of people who wallow in religious mirth, peddling practices that have been consigned to the forest.


I don't know what above can qualify me with the label, a bigot, for there are many with different identifications that should bother my opponent.
Let's be clear about the meaning of the word. Consider two meanings of the word "Bigot":
- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion
- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
By defining yourself first by your religion and not your humanity, even you must admit either one fits squarely.

denker
Mar 8, 2008, 12:27 PM
on the other hand - believe I am human first.

hi, folks!
lets say it loud...WE ARE HUMANs FIRST.

DeepThought
Mar 8, 2008, 02:52 PM
Fjord:
Thanks for your posts.

I believe you are taking an extreme position on this issue and on Islam in particular which goes beyond your intial proposition though.

I hope I'll be able to debate this with you at another time , in another place as I've done in the past when people tried to make the same points you are making, using more or less the same arguments.

I don't want to get deeply involved with this particular thread because of the potential for nastiness.

Thanks

denker
Mar 8, 2008, 03:00 PM
khalil, my dear:

....advanced thoughts define self out of humanity imbuing elements of ethics, seeing,

experiences and observations which embed essentially contemporary components of our

zeitgeist....in absence of dis is thought confined to aberrational condition and can be

falsified to become element of artificiality -falsification is always present when thoughts

take references to non-authenticated sources... e.g. religious scriptures(Qur'an, sunna,

bible...etc)...is always appreciable to see the dynamics of thoughts as

exponential/multifaceted conditioned phenomena based only on the derivatives of logic,

rationality inculcating elements of humanity....!:idea:

Fjord
Mar 8, 2008, 03:57 PM
DT: the discussion has expanded beyond the initial proposition; as that became clear, this "debate" was moved into the "parallel thread" area. Your observation is thus correct, but the responses have followed submissions made.

I'll welcome any direct comments from you, and anyone else. It will be beneficial for you to be specific about the 'extreme position' you mention, here in the open, in PM, or someplace else and at anytime you have the time.
.

DeepThought
Mar 8, 2008, 04:07 PM
Fjord,
Thanks, I'll discuss these with you on some related thread. I believe some of these issues have been thoroughly discussed on this forum in the past.

For now, I'll just observe your thoughs and beliefs on Islam.

Fjord
Mar 8, 2008, 05:07 PM
In that I will still want to maintain that your thesis is nullified since in any case where we find a definition of Islam which accommodates certain behavior, Islam should not be termed as the culprit but rather the individual who is committed to such behavior.

Islam has provided a context for these inhuman acts to take place. One step that could help is a flat-out straightforward condemnation for the sort of indoctrination and hateful speech that we have in videos above. Anyone that's strategy-savvy would understand that what you people say in public isn't the issue: there'll always be backtracking when comments made in secret are made public. Islam is as guilty as the individual, as are those of you who teach in madrassas and expound on anti-civilization doctrines. No, we don't have any problems with the old women who gather and sing in their salat groups; no, we don't have any problems with those Muslims who're progressives and who understand the limitations of practising the religion in conformity with legal and human laws. But we do have a problem with those who maintain the ambition of a political and religious take-over of our way of lives. Islamic religious ideology provides a framework, as well as the backing of petrodollars from a rich Wahabbi state, to back that up. You never commented about the man whose hand was amputated in Zamfara, or the 13-yr old girl who'll never get an education who was married-off to a much older man. You're even yet to make a clear, unambiguous statement that Islam forbids a blind person with a dog to be refused a ride on any account. You hedge and wiggle; it's a well-known tactic.


For that lady when I meet her I'll discuss her points with her in a debating mode far better than this one. In as much as she can display the capacity of remaining civil and pointedly clear. I do alot of that with my Muslim brothers from both the Sunni and Shi'i devides

She made her opinion clear in public; we brought that to your attention; what's stopping you from responding to her comments here and now? Her position is unambiguous; could you ever be so brave as to compose an unambiguous response to her words?


Or is it that you've chosen to see me in that light always forgetting what you have as your avatar?

What's your obsession with my avatar? I've ceased to look at it until you mentioned it. Clearly, you don't understand the significance of Edvard Munch's Madonna. This is one of the iconic paintings of a painter in a Christian nation with the Cross as the flag of the country. I hope you don't miss the significance, especially in the light of the Danish Cartoons. I hasten to add that this avatar came up shortly after an original copy of this painting was stolen by robbers in the museum in Oslo. My hand is now forced, here below; I hope you don't miss the message.

"The title suggests a depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, although it is a highly unusual representation of Mary, who until the 20th century was usually represented in high art as a chaste, mature woman.[citation needed] The figure in this painting appears to be young, perhaps a teenager, and is sensualized, if not eroticized, by her twisting, expressive pose. She stretches her arms behind herself and arches her back, increasing the viewer's consciousness of her physical body. Yet even in this unusual pose, she embodies some of the key elements of canonical representations of the Virgin: she has a quietness and a calm confidence about her. Her eyes are closed, expressing modesty, but she is simultaneously lit from above; her body is seen, in fact, twisting toward the light so as to catch more of it, even while she does not face it with her eyes. These elements suggest aspects of conventional representations of the Annunciation. See also: Madonna (art)."


Or is perception now your exclusive grace de anointed that what you think, you believe should be the opinion of all? I thought you are the brand of a Christian who believes in freedom of thoughts and expression, which makes you forget that there are multiple identities here but that of Khalil is the only one that deserves your intolerance and maximum terror disposition.

You had responded with some sense earlier on, confirming that you know nothing of my religion. You now make a wildly foolish speculation, without any qualifiers; your thought about my religion is as rotten as anything your religious ideology peddles; you know nothing of it. Is it impossible that I claim to be Muslim? Or Atheist? Or Christian? Or Wikan? Or Buddhist?

I am a brand of human who'll fight for the rights of others, especially the weak, including those subjugated by any religion. And, well, I believe in freedom of thought and expression, but I never gave the assurance that I'll not fiercely oppose rotten, backward religious ideology; you need to understand the difference. Of course, there're many of different religions here; they don't however shove their religion in our faces; you do that, since, well, you define yourself by your religion, and then you peddle your religious text as the ultimate source of instruction, and the ultimate basis of right and wrong; that is clearly overreaching and insulting. To reject the insult in the harshest words isn't wrong; you need to learn some manners and keep your religious ideas to yourself; you by then would have won some respect for yourself, by showing respect for others. But that's near-impossible, since your religious ideology says you must dominate, politically and otherwise, and spread your ideology; that's a recipe for conflict. The other time, you wrote:


I was born a Muslim...

No, you weren't born a Muslim.

Like everyone else, you were born an atheist. Think about it.


At which point there’ll be one first assignment for you: a visit to the awfully daft [Mallam Isah] who is so indoctrinated he finds no embarrassment in saying on record that evidence could be disregarded simply because the giver of the evidence has no - how to say it - male equipment.
Oh, you missed out the header of the video: the name is inserted for you, and the video is shown here again. He is Mallam Judge Isah, the same one who said that evidence could be valid based on the type of equipment used to pee.


Well I am product of a Madrassa but you can use your out-reasoning capacity here to demolish each of what I say. When you have issues with Mallam Isa, the person of your video, concerning what you think is illogic on his part, go and meet him.

No, I send you to him. He's afterall a short drive away; he's in Zamfara, and is well-known in Gusau. He'll listen to you. If you support reform and are committed to it, surely, this should be a good deed to do, God's work, even. He was aggressive to the Muslim lady; he'll probably be more receptive to the words of a scholar like yourself. Give it a try, do something for downtrodden humanity in Zamfara state; it'll be more worthwhile than a million posts on a website.



So are you now nullifying your thesis by your self. It is a practice you are against that may be garbed with religious cloak by individuals. And what I defend here is not religious practice of some individuals but my religious values and its methodologies and in that case you should know that you have mis represented your thesis which I come here to anti-thesise

This is grappling at straws. Here: right now, Islam gives a framework for the discrimination, but our equity is frim: we will come against any religion of any hue supporting the same behaviour. We do not do that because we hate your religion, but because we disagree, without ambiguity, with your religious practice in this regard. Values are useful to the extent that they influence human relationships. To claim that you value humanity, and not be able to move an inch on behalf of poor Muslims in Zamfara, say, shows a warped version of "values". We did on behalf of our friends who need the assistance of guide dogs.


Yes my Prophet was literate in the modern sense of the word, it is only that he did not know how to write. After all it is the context and nuances of the flow of our arguments that betray our intentions. That is what I see in your that your particular reference as much as what the administration of this site saw in the other poster's line of reason that they deleted his post.

You deserve commendation: you agree he couldn't write. He was thus an illiterate man. To be literate is to be able to read and write; he couldn't do both, so he was an illiterate man. The post you referred to was made by Denker; the post had substance: what's a 54-yr old man doing with a 9-yr-old girl? If this - which you don't deny - isn't repulsive to you, what else will? I have done the same; the charge remains; it was made in good faith, and with a consideration for available facts.



Even then what you all said about my prophet, from illiteracy, shortsightedness, foolishness and delusion are unsubstantiated here. You can come forward and do it now or open another thread to debate it. Otherwise they remain mere assaults, slanderous and polemical by all standards of reasonable discourses in civilised worlds like yours.

In case you missed it, here, again, for your - as they say - memory upgrade:
- I said he’s dead; is he not?
- I said he was illiterate, isn’t this true? To the extent that he couldn’t write; he must be described as an illiterate man. Do you dispute this?
- I gave him credit as a prophet; what’s your problem with that?
- I called him short-sighted. Do you argue this? No, I didn’t mean short-sightedness in the medical sense; I don’t think that’s bad in itself. Look, we’re talking of a man who supported the maltreatment of women – essentially classifying them as property - , and who never had the good sense to reject the betrothal of a 9 (6, I should correct myself, eh) year old girl at age 54 years; it’s a kindness to simply describe him as “short-sighted”; there are harsher words that’ll fit the bill.
- I called him foolish: see directly above; “foolish” is still mild.
- Megalomaniac: c’mon! He sure was delusional. First, he got an angel dictating a book to him. Second, he rode on a winged horse over some long distance. Quite a grand delusion! You shouldn’t argue against that.

Fjord
Mar 8, 2008, 05:36 PM
Here's an addition to my response regarding Edvard Munch's "Madonna":

Your obsession is misplaced, as shown in my last post. It is also hypocritical, considering what your favourite text has to say about female sexuality:
1) the promise of beautiful virgins to Muslim men in heaven for sexual pleasure: see Qu'ran at 44:54, 78:33, 55:56; the promise of voluptous women: Quran 78:31-33.
2) Estimates of the numbers of girls/women per Muslim man vary from 2 to 72: here, we can refer to Bukhari - whom you've referenced on these pages - and Al-Tirmidhi.
3) Al-Tirmidhi wrote: "The least reward for the people of paradise is 80,000 servants and 72 wives" - Al-Tirmidhi 2562, 2687
4) When asked, "Do we have sex in Paradise?" Ibn Kathir, the renowned Islamic scholar explained:'Yes, by him who holds my soul in his hand, and it will be done...and when the sex is finished she will return pure and virgin again'– Tafsir Ibn Kathir.
5) Al-Suyuti (15th century), Islamic theologian and Quranic comentator adds: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected (Muslims in heaven) never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world ...Each chosen Muslim will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."

Munch's painting was beyond crass sexuality; it appears these Islamic scholars were much less subtle.
.

Khalil
Mar 10, 2008, 12:29 PM
Well quite an interesting development which comes a long way to confirm my earlier perception of Fjord.

It was indeed the reason why I challenged him to the Crucible that I may be able to form an opinion about his sense of etiquette, emotional stability where formality is required, and the causes of the bitterness he often express against Islam, its prophet and some Muslims on this forum perchance they may be rooted in some deep knowledge of the principles of the religion. That was why upon seeing the seriousness with which he took the issue after accepting the challenge in the thread, http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/44962-barack-obama-illuminati-agent-2.html , I added in post #17 of the same thread:


Proceed! But its at your own risk to miss the fun of it all!

But when we reached the Crucible, Fjord, gave a proposition without substance but rather questions that if answered should bring out the substance from his side. On this almost 10 persons thought it was not fair and suggested a concession on his part but rather what he believes is right must be right for all and as such he stuck to his guns.

On my part and by virtue of my training and upbringing culture and religious orientation which emphasizes the necessity of making concessions for others in the believe of the philosophy of getting what I want as much as giving others what they want, I shifted my position. This thread from its beginning is full of my posts making shifts toward his end of the means and ways.

Well I still created the benefit of doubts for him and asked him his motives for behaving that way and promised to answer his questions on making that clear of which he did and I answered the questions hoping they would help him make his case that, Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs.

But rather he couldn't for the obvious reason that he thought things are always black or white in the Muslim science of jurisprudence. No. Situations are unique and each situation or condition demands a unique approach but the gauge is always emphatic on intention. And his failure to bring a Muslim driver here to this court of public opinion in order for us to hear from the individual driver his reason for not picking the blind with their dog, or make a substantive entry on the rounded circumstance of the drivers on which they say they would not take those people, left us handicapped on making justice to his proposition.

Even then after answering his initial questions came up other questions from him one of which asks for a biography of a Hadith reporter we referred to.


Who is Abu Huraira? When was he born, and when did he die? How did he know what the prophet said? How did Bukari come to know of this report? Do you subscribe to all of Bukhari's writings?

Of course that couldn't have been troublesome had he gave the biography of the Muslim drivers he is referring to here.

Whatever the case maybe the debate between Khalil and Fjord held for posterity to record and judgment of the Cruciblers over this remain their opinion. But on my part I feel very safe and unburdened now for having gave him enough room to make his case against Islam on the subject choosen by him, or myself. In the end I have realized that:

1. He hasn't much to say but his self-centered disposition that makes him fail to make concessions for others in what they feel is right or what they like for the sake of togetherness.

2. That his express bitterness against Islam, its prophet other Muslims or myself are borne out of sheer Islamophobia or simply Khalilophobia, not good understanding of its principles, or he may be struggling with some streak of habit inherited somewhere on account of his circumstance or gene.

3. That I'll never expect him to agree with me since he cannot even agree with anybody who in this thread attempted to show him the better way to pursue his case. Even the person who was suppose to be the moderator of the debate, the final judge!

4. That his argument against Islam or myself, only hinges on the opinion of others that may not be good in his sight. We have here clips and clips that do not have bearing on the issues under discourse. He does that forgetting that he too could be judged on the opinion or evil practices of some Christians.

Well, cultures and values differ but a true Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa or the product of any other African culture does not encourage taking elders to the wash house especially those elders dead or alive that are held in a very high esteem and particularly when they represent good religious estimation.

Yes, I maybe a small boy by Fjord's thoughts but I am surely not a factory slave who can never be termed a gentle man in the real Anglo-Saxon culture for right at the borderline of my teen years I was able to address adults on the ways to live a communal life of Win/Win not his own type that does not make room for concession here or elsewhere. This is the paper I presented then:

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/45373-corporate-behavior-future-nigerian-graduates.html#post4294994782

I only wish my opponent will learn something of fair disposition from it, if not he can proceed around the square making bold his attack on Islam, its prophet, myself or other Muslims for it is apparent that nobody can call him to order and no value can restrain him.

But for myself, I remain a Muslim first before anything since good values are what make human beings human, a human being without good values has found a synonym in the non concessional character here called Fjord. And I'll remain a Muslim on NVS commenting however I wish to like many others of different identity from me do.

I think I'll retire now and attend to the paper I am writing to be presented in the conference to come on International Religious Harmony.

Safe drive Fjord, having conceded to you everything for this debate to happen, I think it will be good also to concede to you the winnership of the debate that you may feel better and triumphant. I am sure that will help your wounded self esteem.

What I'll ask from you is to not take anything involving me too serious in future as I advised you from the onset when you took the challenge to debate me. A bigot is only he who apart from understanding who he is as different from others, also takes that difference to emotional outburst to the peak of not being able to make concessions for anybody on anything.

That surely I am not as seen in this debate but my opponent.

I remain most grateful to all who took time to comment or in anyway register their interest in what is happening here. It has been a great thing having you all reading me and do not be surprised if in future I get unto any of you dragging them to the Crucible for a debate on anything religious or secular, I am only hoping that you will always take me serious but not too serious. We can do this but keeping our emotions on the surface even when sometimes we here something that hurts us from our opponents. We can even do with some little yabbing of one another!:lol::rolleyes::D

DeepThought, hope you dey hear me well, na you I go take my intellectual matchet crush finish next time! So take note!!! :D:D:D


Khalilurrahman

Fjord
Mar 10, 2008, 09:11 PM
But rather he couldn't for the obvious reason that he thought things are always black or white in the Muslim science of jurisprudence

You prostitute the meaning of science and jurisprudence by placing those words in the sentence above. And no, things aren't either black or white; there're shades of grey; several of them. That's why we were able to find clerics who supported our cause, neglecting their personal danger to give opinions they knew would get them in trouble; that's why we had people from both sides of the issue submitting documents to back us up. Invariably, all these people have been influenced by life in open societies, so much so that they recognise that it is impossible to continue with ancient traditions that have no real meaning today.


And his failure to bring a Muslim driver here to this court of public opinion in order for us to hear from the individual driver his reason for not picking the blind with their dog, or make a substantive entry on the rounded circumstance of the drivers on which they say they would not take those people, left us handicapped on making justice to his proposition.

The above shows your so-called sincerity and objectivity. Had you any earnestness about knowing of the problems of the blind with Muslim drivers, you'd've found them; examples of cases abound. But once again, we'll assist in your education. Here are clear, documented examples that aren't dissimilar from the case we fought, and won.


That I'll never expect him to agree with me since he cannot even agree with anybody who in this thread attempted to show him the better way to pursue his case. Even the person who was suppose to be the moderator of the debate, the final judge!

First off, I have agreed with you before, and on this board; "never say never"; it's either your memory is slipping, or you're a habitual liar. You're attempting to revise very recent history; where's the integrity? You could learn from this thread how conflicts are resolved by remote contact:

- First, SLB writes that my post was in violation of rules; some others tacitly supported that assertion.
- Then I referred directly to the rules, and showed - beyond reasonable doubt, I should be pleased to add - that they were not.
- SLB, fair and faithful to principle, noted he had omitted reading the main proposition (This, you must learn, is a mark of originality and class, being able to entertain the possibility of being wrong, and conceding such when clear). To give you some credit though, you accepted, perfunctorily, to debate
- DT, who - one would suppose from his early posts - believed the rules were flouted stepped in: perhaps the first post did not conflict with the rules. He confirms this as his opinion in a defence against some distraction.
- DT notes that the approach and tactic of attack in the debate wasn't well thought-out; my response was not to argue the fine point, but to explain
- DT further points out that my opinions are extreme; I then submitted to a discussion of specifics; we agree to do it in some other thread. (Note: I will not say DT is wrong until I have heard him out; neither will I be telling him my favourite book says I'm not extreme, therefore, I'm not. It may be that I have been extreme; I should be glad to learn from his perspective. )

Apparently, you see no lesson in this. You should learn, not only from the elders, but from everyone. The elders have no monopoly of insight; that may be alien to you; learn that from a different culture. We live to learn, and we could from anybody. An opinion stands or falls on its own, whether propounded by an Einstein, the village i.d.i.o.t, or some other ordinary person (be wary of being dismissive of so called village i.d.i.o.t.s; as the Enlightenment taught us, a Village I.d.i.o.t could be the bearer of profound truth).


Well, cultures and values differ but a true Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa or the product of any other African culture does not encourage taking elders to the wash house especially those elders dead or alive that are held in a very high esteem and particularly when they represent good religious estimation.
First off, you insult other ethnic nationalities within the Nigerian geographical space by restricting yourself to mentioning the big three; next time, expand it a little bit more. And, in the matter of "respect", we must differ. Your hero, my villain. Isn't it strange times when you attempt to lecture people here? Consider your assertions:
--- that the Qu'ran is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
--- that you're a Muslim first before anything else.
--- that the conduct of your favourite top cleric is the standard for human conduct.

Wherever you make these assertions without being ridiculed and/or opposed, then you can be sure you're in the midst of people who'll agree with you on anything.
.

Fjord
Mar 10, 2008, 09:19 PM
Yes, I maybe a small boy by* Fjord*'s thoughts but I am surely not a factory slave who can never be termed a gentle man in the real Anglo-Saxon culture for right at the borderline of my teen years I was able to address adults on the ways to live a communal life of Win/Win not his own type that does not make room for concession here or elsewhere.

No, nowhere have I made a reference to your age, or you being a small boy. I have only confirmed that you're an adult. In our world, those are irrelevant things. So far you're able to express ideas, we shall treat you as we will treat anyone else; first as 'equals', until you show yourself unworthy. Blaise Pascal was only 16 when he sent out his important proof to mathematicians and scientists in Europe. Einstein was 24 when he synthesised knowledge to arrive at surprising solutions. There are several other examples. The fact is, I have not denigrated you because of your age; it's a false charge you've made up.

Yes, call me a factory slave; but I'd rather slave at these machines than be a slave to your prophet in the prison of ideas that're rotten and of no use. You lie about me not ever making concessions; to make concessions to extremists, seldom; but yes, if you held a gun to my head, I may be encouraged to make a reasonable concession; in fact, I've made concessions without threats. But the sort of concession you desire will not come while you maintain that the Qu'ran is the ultimate decider of right and wrong, and that your top cleric is the standard of good behaviour. When you write trash like that, you disrespect your readers and make yourself into sth you're not. And readers who have encountered poster Fjord on this board have attested to his malleability, but only to sound ideas, not ideas xeroxed from a 6th century book of recollections supposedly dictated by an angel.


But for myself, I remain a Muslim first before anything since good values are what make human beings human, a human being without good values has found a synonym in the non concessional character here called *Fjord*.

First, you can't be completely bad; I don't believe that. I will for a long time remember a time when your humanity overtook your religiosity: when you made the superb comment that the funds used to airlift hajj candidates by a certain state in Northern Nigeria could have been used to train 50 or so professionals. That was a sterling moment in your career of commenting on the Internet, and Fjord clicked the "Thanks" button for you on that. What happened to that Khalil?

The concessions you seek are at the root of discussion. And I have responded to all comments by you in detail. No, we do not hold sacred any human or thing. Yes, we have Muslim friends; no, they don't hate us; yes, we like them and are neighbours to them. No, they don't fly the my-religion-is-the-best-and-my-Quran-is-superior-to-your-values kite in our faces; no, they don't tell us the my-prophet-is-the-best-model-of-good-behaviour mantra. Perhaps they truly believe it; but they suspect we may have convictions that're as strong as theirs, and they want to respect and be respected. They don't tell us I'm-a-Muslim-first-before-anything-else; perhaps they believe it; but they try to find common grounds amongst different peoples. They don't disagree when we assert that we're human first. They're then able to invite us to the mosque which yours truly attended more than six times last year - it was a tad uncomfortable to sit on the rugged floor, but the atmosphere was genial, and people were respectful and kind - and we have invited them to our home while taking note to do the cooking with halal meat for their purpose. And yes, we have been threatened as some of these friends have. It is my submission that those of the latter sort have positions similar to those of a certain poster on this thread who, defining themselves by an acquired state cannot see beyond what divides us.

I asserted that you were born an atheist; it is interesting you accepted without contest; it is good that you think about it next time you make the assertion that you were born a Muslim. The stark, irrefutable fact is that before you were a Muslim, you were an Atheist. It is a mark of irrationality for anyone - of any religion or leaning - to dispute this statement of fact. I'll suppose you're still rational some.

Fjord
Mar 10, 2008, 09:41 PM
I was going to read through your presentation, the one you linked to, which you appear quite proud of, but got stopped at paragraph 5, where you wrote:


It will also aid our understanding of this paper if we can come to terms with the truth that all the eight major world religions, both theistic: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Shintoism, and the aesthetic: Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism have something in common. They may differ in premise and conclusion but the body of discourse is basically the same. For example, Rabbi Hillel, the leading Jewish priest of the 1st century BC, preached the Golden Rule long before Confucius, the Chinese philosopher and the founder of Confucianism preached it. Of course that was some 500 years before Christ would do the same, saying: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” . This certainly was before the Prophet of Islam would say: “Unbeliever is he who does not wish for his neighbor what he wishes for himself.” The principles of Golden Rule are also believed to have appeared in the ancient Hindu poem, Mahabharata.

Sorry, but your knowledge of the elementary and basic is so shallow it is quite stunning. Read the underlined and highlighted words again. And again. My pity for your audience; and I wonder at the quality of that audience. I hope someone corrected you; if they did, there's no indication of it; were you then the resident brainiac, beyond criticism and correction, your word being law? What sort of environment made it possible for the very expression you said would "... aid [the] understanding of [your] paper..." to be a display of ignorance on at least two fronts.

You could be forgiven for not knowing that Confucius lived and died more than 400 years before Rabbi Hillel, but how could you place 1 BC(E) before 479 BCE, the year Confucius died? And this is the tour de force of your teenage years? How could the basic understanding of dates have escaped you? Yet, you not only present the "paper" to your audience, you also present it here as an indication of your mighty mental prowess.

This is disappointing, scholar. It appears a lot of time has been wasted in educating you on this board, a fact you're not even willing to concede as much as you're unwilling to acknowledge. You could redeem yourself by researching the 'Golden Rule'. This factory worker knows quite a bit about it; when you're done, you could start a discussion. Things have now changed.

We'll now be gentle with you; could this be the reason some of the commentators dismissed you at the other place? One will now be forced to ask. I think you may need to learn, deeply and broadly, before you start asserting things as you have done on this thread. Considering the pompous, classless comments you make about yourself a la you belonging to a "school of thought", "writing a paper to deliver at a conference", hints that're the stock-in-trade of insecure, inferiority-complexed pseudo-intellectuals, it's close to being certain that you're used to to employing empty, meaningless rhetoric, even stating as facts things you know next to nothing about to sound original. I suspect you've learned this - quite badly though - from one of your favourite philosophers. "Understand this": there's no substitute for thinking, and clearly too.

.

bubbles
Mar 11, 2008, 02:34 AM
fjord and khalil, both of you have gone off tangent! this is supposed to be a debate about muslim drivers, the blind and seeing eye dogs. get back on track or i will be forced to settle this once and for all.

Fjord
Mar 11, 2008, 05:56 AM
Here are clear, documented examples that aren't dissimilar from the case we fought, and won.

1) Hassan Taher, devout Muslim, refuses a ride to Annie McEachrin and her 4-year-old black Labrador. Ms. McEachrin has been blind since birth. Location:Cincinnati. Full Report Here (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/04/03/loc_cabbie.html)

2) Mike Ahmed denies David Bearden and his Seeing Eye dog into a BP gas station. Mr. Bearden is legally blind. Location: Brooksville, Florida. Full Report Here (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/14/Hernando/Denied_entry__man_see.shtml)

3) Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni, minicab drivers, refuses to drive Mrs Jane Vernon, who works as a legal officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Mrs. Vernon said: "I was tired and cold and just wanted to get home but this driver made me feel like I was a second-class citizen, like I didn't count at all." Location: Hammersmith, United Kingdom. Full Report Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true)

4) Basir Miah, driver, refuses Bernie Reddington a lift home from a hospital appointment; Ms. Reddington is blind. She reported that Miah called her dog "dirty". Location: United Kingdom FullStory Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true)

5) TAXI drivers who refuse to carry blind people with guide dogs face fines of up to $1100, the NSW Government warned today amid outrage at the biased practice. The treatment of the blind by some Sydney taxi drivers has been exposed by Human Rights and Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes, who is himself blind and reliant on his guide dog Jordie. Location: New South Wales, Australia. Full Story Here (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21782513-5001021,00.html)

6) Sallahaddin Abdullah was fined 200 and ordered to pay 1,000 court costs after he was found guilty of abandoning Paul and Kerry Monaghan on the pavement outside Cambridge Railway Station. The couple, from North Walsham in Norfolk, are both registered blind, and Mrs Monaghan is also deaf. Location: Cambridge Railway Station, the UK. Full Story Here (http://geoffandwen.com/blind/newsarticle.asp?u_id=19444)

7) Behzad Saidy, taxi druver, shunned Bruce Gilmour A blind Vancouver man and his guide dog. Mr. Gilmour has been blind for 30 years. Location: Canada Full Story Here (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=56d2befb-c635-4e70-af65-167a1f031335&k=68681)

8) "Cabbies see guide dogs and drive away, blind riders say". Blind people sometimes wait more than an hour or have to call the cab company repeatedly after taxis arrived, then sped off on seeing the guide dog. "I've had so many bad experiences," says one blind person, Steve Heesen. Location: Milwaukee, US. Full Story Here (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=661645)

More?
.

Khalil
Mar 11, 2008, 11:53 AM
fjord and khalil, both of you have gone off tangent! this is supposed to be a debate about muslim drivers, the blind and seeing eye dogs. get back on track or i will be forced to settle this once and for all.

I think say I don say d guy don win the debate? Na im now dey follow me dey say e no say I be boy forgeting im word in post #31 here:


Get on with with, Khalil boy; get on with it.

Well what he is correcting from my teanage paper I gree say na true also since a little googling is sure to guarantee that even in a twisted form that does not ensure relialibity of dates in prehistoric times.

And the fact after judgement he is producing regarding those drivers will not change my earlier stance that I'll advice my Muslim lovely brothers and sister always to play along with the condition they find themselves cos they will find favour with God in that even if it means they breaking the strictest requirement of their faith. Afterall helping dogs or animals according to Islam can secure one a comfortable place in paradise, talkless of helping humanbeings!

Well, sha the guy don win everything of this debate for I am sure he is not going to dare pick my challenge to it again in future.

Much love to you Fjord!

I finally sign out of this thread.

Khalilurrahman

denker
Mar 11, 2008, 01:53 PM
khalil,not minding the devastating intellectual punches you have suffered in the hands of our abled fjord, i go still give you a pass-mark...am only uneasy cuz i do not really know for sure how your mind works...anywaz, cheers!

DeepThought
Mar 12, 2008, 06:36 AM
Fjord,
Thanks for your thoughs on this issue. Very interesting



DeepThought, hope you dey hear me well, na you I go take my intellectual matchet crush finish next time! So take note!!!

@Kalil:
My ignoring you is not an oversight. You will notice I've not directed any comments your way. I prefer not to join issues with you but if you keep dragging me into your affairs, I'll eventually turn my attention to you. If that happens, I promise you, you won't like it. In the meantime, please lets cordially ignore each other

Thanks in advance

Khalil
Mar 12, 2008, 01:01 PM
DeepThought

I had formally sign out of this thread before I see you directing your comments at me now which you did not before as such I logged on to respond to you particularly. I understand that from the on set you thought Fjord would be able to humiliate me here and so you identified with him. I know you did that intentionally that you maybe able to square the accounts with me for the previous beep you took to on me.

But as you quickly realized the maximum shortcomings coming from his positions you tactfully and politely declined from supporting him for the obvious reason of his several misplacements which I guess you being very conscious of your reputation would not want to associate with.

But it is worrisome indeed to notice you saying what you are saying in all seriousness(and I hope you are not as you sound). I have always believed my stay on NVS and the matters discussed are left at a single breath here only to pick up at the next logging.

So I do not sleep thinking about anybody here as much as it doesn't bother me seeing anybody commenting on anything. I only comment on what is said regardless of who says it and so I comment on what you say also.

However if you insist on taking me based on a strict layer of emotional uncomfortability within you, I am sure you will fail just like Fjord you supported here failed. I always discuss what I confidently can defend. One takes me serious the discussion goes formal. One takes me too serious, the discussion becomes emotional at their own expense not mine.

So no emotions please, we agree only to disagree.

I will keep on commenting directly to what you write where it seem necessary or desired since we are here not writing for ourselves but rather the public. And I'll be accompanying that i write with a little tease at my discretion, but it remains your prerogative to respond to me or not and it wouldn't bother me a bit no matter how positive or negative your comment about me would come.

I guess nothing bad said about now can be worst than what was said about me in this life before as much as nothing good about me can be said here that has not been said elsewhere.

So I still dey down flat dey beg you in our cherished culture to not make too much out of what we write here. The way we come is the same way we will go tomorrow, death can knock at our doors anytime!

Khalilurahman

tanibaba
Mar 13, 2008, 11:57 AM
@Khalil

According to my people " you make yourself a subject of ridicule by fowls and hens once you lace your waistline with beads made from corn."

I interjected early in this argument to assist you in realizing that any "debate?" with Fjord on religion will lead nowhere. Get all the evidences in this world and the man will not even attempt to evaluate them but will seek to ridicule them. I have come to know him as someone who will constantly view religious matters strictly from the western viewpoint. I think he once claimed to be an atheist.

I am sorry but you just wasted your time on this thread.

Be careful next time.


taslim

denker
Mar 13, 2008, 01:17 PM
the blatant dimwitted Nincompoop dross, tanibaba taslim has once again damaged dis thread with his usual warped and silly comment...what a foolish creature!

tanibaba
Mar 13, 2008, 04:14 PM
@denker

i will be making you a hero in a very cheap manner if i respond to you. Therefore i will let it pass.

In case you are worried, check out Afam. He referred to the members of the cult here as retarded. And he is right. Long after Justice Ogebe has been confirmed for higher duties some noise makers will not let us rest. Do their views matter? They should stop and ask themselves this question once in a while.

As for this thread, Khalil has thanked me so you "gba ran mi di eleru" should have seen that if you are not retarted.

taslim

denker
Mar 13, 2008, 04:48 PM
the blatant dimwitted Nincompoop dross, tanibaba taslim has once again damaged dis thread with his usual warped and silly comment...what a foolish creature!:evil::evil:

DeepThought
Mar 14, 2008, 12:24 AM
@Khalil
You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes at the same time. Meaning you can't lay claim to intellectual/scholastic detachement and make highly offensive comments about a poster's wife when a post rubs you the wrong way.

The minimum reaction from me to a gratutious/offensive personal attack would probably be a non response and a disinclination to engage in future. A worse reaction would probably be to retaliate/escalate with counter insults and a downward spiral into likely counterproductiveness

I'll respond fully to your PM as soon as I get my workload down and perhaps we can work these things out.

Thanks

Fjord
Mar 16, 2008, 07:18 AM
I interjected early in this argument to assist you in realizing that any "debate?" with Fjord on religion will lead nowhere. Get all the evidences in this world and the man will not even attempt to evaluate them but will seek to ridicule them.

Perhaps you're not a liar, but right now, you have lied. Contrary to the drooling above, I have always taken the time to respond to each and every point raised in any discussion. Regarding your post (which you'd now referred to - correctly, one should add - as an interjection, and so it was, being made out of something more feeble than emotion), I responded to it in full, outlining why you were wrong.


I have come to know him as someone who will constantly view religious matters strictly from the western viewpoint.

You don't know jack. And, what's "western"?


I think he once claimed to be an atheist.

Then your thinking isn't up to scratch, and almighty Allah knows it. I have not at any time thrown my religion (if it exists at all) at anyone here. The speculations of you people have come full circle: from Christian, to Agnostic, to Atheist. You guys don't know what you don't know. And, eh, tell me, what's it with being atheist? You were born an atheist, and it doesn't take an Einstein to show you in a few sentences that you're atheist yourself.


I am sorry but you just wasted your time on this thread. Be careful next time.

Let's see.. In your earlier attempt to comment responsibly on this thread, you showed you didn't understand the matter as stated; you jumped ahead to make a summary that was beyond that little understanding, and you succeeded in writing a few things that I called you out on. You wrongly thought the topic was about keeping dogs, which made you provide unnecessary personal details that couldn't be confirmed: (1) that you have followers (2) that you own a number of dogs. You also wrote the following:

(1) In the Quran, dog was mentioned two times.

(2) There is a ruling on this topic and it is clear that what a muslim should avoid is the saliva from a dog which is considered as filth. Shikena.

(3) In summary Islam does not forbid the keeping of dogs, playing with them etc as long as we don't allow the saliva to touch our body or cloth.

I've called you out on claim (1): no, dog isn't mentioned only twice in the Qu'ran. How come you don't know your sacred text?

Look at (2) and (3) and tell me how anyone with any good knowledge of dogs would take you seriously when you not only believe them, but also repeat them in the 21st century. Why is the saliva of dogs considered filth? Those who made the ruling (who are they?) are quite short-sighted and ignorant; both are forgivable, provided there's a forward march to change. What's more striking is that confronted with evidnce in our times, you refuse to change your opinion.

tanibaba
Mar 17, 2008, 11:21 AM
@Fjord
@Fjord

I will stick to my own advice to Khalil by not engaging you. However, I will be glad that you provide evidence(s) to support your propositions. It is not sufficient that you make propositions and expect us to defend ourselves when there are no verifiable claims to support your position.

That was Khalil's mistake, he was engaging you when you did not provide any evidence to support your claims. Also if you question the number of times dog was mentioned in the Quran , then provide your own answer and not simply tell me that I am wrong.

Until then I will not bother to engage you again.

taslim

Fjord
Mar 18, 2008, 04:37 AM
tanibaba: one day when the weather is really bad and I have a lot of time, I'll respond to you.

.

tanibaba
Mar 20, 2008, 05:07 PM
@fjord
you wrote:

tanibaba: one day when the weather is really bad and I have a lot of time, I'll respond to you.

Whatever that means i dont know but i interprete it to mean that for now you are packing your tails behind your back and hoping to "fight" another day.

On your way back research and provide evidence to support your motion about muslim drivers, the blind and seeing eye dogs.

Show us where the subject was discussed in the Quran or Hadith. And break it down for us to know which of these you are emphasising - drivers, the blind or seeing eye dogs.

About rulings, before you question who the authors are can we establish if it is an acceptable reference in Islam.

I am waiting for you.

taslim

Fjord
Mar 20, 2008, 07:58 PM
You're misreading simple words, again, poster tanibaba.

And your militant ignorance reagrding your favourite sacred text is quite amazing.

I'll however provide guidance to you regarding your claim that the Quran tlaks about dogs only twice when the conditions above are met: bad weather plus lots of time on my hands. You wait, eh, the weatherwoman's words are optimistic for you later tonight.

As to the rest of your last post, I'd reckon no one could help you, if the last several posts are too much to digest for understanding.

.

tanibaba
Mar 20, 2008, 08:57 PM
@Fjord
I plead no defence in respect of your insults. I am ignorant and everything that you have stated.\\

But Mr. Wise, just as Khalil wrote on page 5 of this thread

Islam discriminates against the blind who have broken the chains of dependence by the use of seeing-eye dogs
and you did not show yet how Islam did just that!

I am asking you for proof of your claim. The two main authorities in Islam are the Quran and the Hadith. Bury your head inside these two, research for once and bring out the verses or chapters to support your claim.\\

Until you are able to do that it is a waste of time engaging you.\\

taslim

tanibaba
Mar 20, 2008, 09:09 PM
@Fjord

Part of your post 70 reads

Look at (2) and (3) and tell me how anyone with any good knowledge of dogs would take you seriously when you not only believe them, but also repeat them in the 21st century. Why is the saliva of dogs considered filth? Those who made the ruling (who are they?) are quite short-sighted and ignorant; both are forgivable, provided there's a forward march to change. What's more striking is that confronted with evidnce in our times, you refuse to change your opinion.


This is why i asked you to tell us if rulings are acceptable references in Islam before we evaluate the authors who you have described as ignorant etc.\\\

The truth is that you make very wild claims and unintelligent statements and then look for Islam and muslims to ridicule by ascribing them to Islam.

But it is not yet time to engage you. Provide your proofs including the one in this post and then i volunteer to engage you even if this is the only thing i will do all my life.\

At the end of the day there will not be any argument about who is mad or stupid; the guilty party will come in contact with the truth and it will be too hard, very hard to deny.

I am waiting for you when you are ready.\\\\

taslim

Fjord
Mar 21, 2008, 05:52 AM
In a game of wits, it'll be ungentlemanly - at least - to engage an unarmed man.

First, you complain about being insulted; thin-skinned, ne? It's good advice to dump egos before getting the fingers to the keyboard.

When you're able to count how many times your favourite sacred screed mentions the animal dog, you'd've set the stage for taking you a tiny bit seriously.
.

tanibaba
Mar 21, 2008, 05:29 PM
@fjord

Come of it. I am not scared of being proved wrong by anyone anyday.

Stop passing the buck. You started this thread so we are going back to the begining by asking you to provide proof from either the Quran or Hadith to support your proposition.\

Until then no engagement with you\\\


taslim

superego
Jun 20, 2008, 03:29 PM
Wow!
God is great!