Saturday, October 8, 2016

Sharif Gabir and the Dunning Kruger effect: Sharif explains how to convert an atheist

(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)
At the start of the video Sharif state “if you meet an atheist anywhere in street, in youtube, in twitter, will you let him go? Will you let him remain in his “religion””?
My answer is yes, because generally even in real life among my own friends that I have some of them are atheists in both facebook and in my local aria in Iraq sharif, I’ve discussed some of them and last night I was discussing on facebook a member of a facebook group I’m part in it, he was stubborn, despite the evidence I presented he kept attacking my personality mocked me and my religion, of course not all atheists are like this and I meet handful of them, but this is just one example of why I don’t usually waste my time with atheists
@00:20 already he state we are not in the time of real islam were we kill them where ever we find them, again no true Scotsman fallacy, I don’t need to explain why this claim is ridiculous and I already made a blog responding to TMA regarding killing the innocent
He also stated that Dawah today is unlike the past where it was spread by killing, he cited no sources no references at all

The first out of five ways he supposedly state to turn an atheist to a muslim he state that you make a mistake if you tell the atheist that he doesn’t know anything about islam, because an atheist know more about religion than you do 1000x times 2000x times, now this is the primary reason why I decided to attack this video of his, not only he cited no sources or reference but also this is self-refuting, it refute his own video, why would I try to turn an atheist to a muslim if he already know about the religion more than I do?  It will be redundant and unpragmatic, infact I meet handful of atheists who left islam not for logical reasons but for emotional ones, both in skype and real life, as I had a couple of my friends telling me they left islam because they never felt it, not because they investigated it and decided upon years that it can’t be the god true religion
His evidence for such nonsense is that he stated @01:37 is that all what I know about religion I learned from books in school
The funny thing is he state a quranic verse that he mistakes it as a hadith (not sure if he is trying to be sarcastic here)
The verse is 5:101
“O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you”
He tries to explain this verse without citing a single authentic tafsir by his own, this is why sharif gabri is one of the most primitive atheists I have ever seen
But I shall explain It with sources and evidence
Some scholars went further to state that the meaning of this is that you should not ask for things related to your family history such as asking about your father and what his presence was
An evidence for this is presented in Sahih Bukhari
“Allah's Messenger () came out as the sun declined at midday and offered the Zuhr prayer. He then stood on the pulpit and spoke about the Hour (Day of Judgment) and said that in it there would be tremendous things. He then said, "Whoever likes to ask me about anything he can do so and I shall reply as long as I am at this place of mine. Most of the people wept and the Prophet () said repeatedly, "Ask me." `Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi stood up and said, "Who is my father?" The Prophet () said, "Your father is Hudhafa." The Prophet () repeatedly said, "Ask me." Then `Umar knelt before him and said, "We are pleased with Allah as our Lord, Islam as our religion, and Muhammad as our Prophet." The Prophet then became quiet and said, "Paradise and Hell-fire were displayed in front of me on this wall just now and I have never seen a better thing (than the former) and a worse thing (than the latter).”[1]

Al-Shukani related in regards to this verse in his tafsir “you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you”
meaning don’t ask for anything that you don’t need to ask if it doesn’t involve religious matter[2]

Sharif state that an atheist read about religion from A to Z, again no sources provided
Later he tries to be cocky and laughable by making two imaginary characters just like the infamous childish attitude of TMA that I discussed (I see a common theme here among atheist youtubers) and try to cite a couple of books including Al-Dur Al-Thamina Fi Nikah Al-Samina, I’m not sure why he is citing these things
@03:05 he state the infamous argument in response to some muslims who might call an atheist “stupid” he state that atheists have higher IQ than religious people, never mind how IQ has been discovered to be an unpragmatic way to measure intelligence
This can be traced back to a study went viral on the internet titled “The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations” by Miron Zuckerman Jordan Silberman and Judith A. Hall[3]
I don’t have direct access to this study but a lot have casted doubt upon how pragmatic it’s for example Dr. William M. Briggs  stated cited an analysis date by Richard Lynn, John Harvey, and Helmuth Nyborg state the following
"Two of the most anomalous are Cuba and Vietnam, which have higher percentages disbelieving in God (40% and 81%, respectively) than would be expected from their IQs of 85 and 94 (respectively). This is likely attributable to these being former or current communist countries in which there has been strong atheistic propaganda against religious belief. In addition, it has sometimes been suggested that communism is itself a form of religion in which Das Capital is the sacred text, Lenin was the Messiah who came to bring heaven on earth, while Stalin, Mao, Castro and others have been his disciples who have came to spread the message in various countries."[4]
I’ve linked a detailed analysis of Zuckerman’s study in the footnotes
What I’m trying to point across here is that this date completely ignores many high atheist population countries with average IQ, and the fact that IQ is no longer an accurate way of measuring intelligence but let us move on

Later he rambles about how an atheist is so in deep in reading books, he wakes up reading book and feed on reading books, and reading articles and so on, this is also a generalization fallacy, as I also meet many ignorant atheists who had no idea that a thing called Islamic science exist

Later he state another path to ignore and that is the path of intimidation, which means that a muslim should Not intimidate an atheist if he wants to turn him to a muslim
Ironically through 8 years of studying islam, and late 3 years after reverting I was intimidated many times by atheists about the consequence of returning to islam or remaining a muslim, to assume again that all Dawah apologists or all muslims intimidate atheists in relations to converting them is a generalization fallacy

And this is the end of his arguments, although I ignored the one regarding evolution cause it’s not part of my tactics on debating atheists, I only response to the allegations here that is related to how I address atheists

Camel Urine Nonsense

Here I want to put to rest a famous and ridiculous nonsensical claim that muslims drink camel urine, regardless of the fact that it’s only exclusive as a tribal practice to Saudi arabia and not the rest of 50+ muslim countries around the world, but let us address this shall we, do muslims drink camel urine? Answer is no, this is a tribal practice to Saudi arabia and gulf states not muslims as a hole, but I noticed some idiotic nonsense brought to me in the past years and that feeding on feces has never been part of non muslim culture, this is empirically false, feces and more particularly animal feces has been used so many times , some might say it’s only a special case in using animal manure for farming, but it goes way beyond this, there has been many uses of animal feces, for example Premarin medication, It is used most commonly in postmenopausal women who have had a hysterectomy to treat hot flashes, and burning, itching, and dryness of the vagina and surrounding areas, this medication is extracted from urine of pregnant horses[5]
Now some might state that this is a medication and it’s a necessary process while camel urine is useless and causes infection with MERS virus (I shall address this later in this article).
Now is this true? Is it true that no non muslim culture uses animal feces as food? Like Saudi arabia? The answer is still no, infact the world most famous and expensive coffee is extracted frome animal feces
Kopi Luwak Coffee
“kopi luwak is a form of processing rather than a variety of coffee, it has been called one of the most expensive coffees in the world with retail prices reaching €550 / US$700 per kilogram, close to the €850 / US$1,100 price of Black Ivory coffee. The price paid to collectors in the Philippines is closer to US$20 per kilogram. The price of farmed (considered low-grade by connoisseurs) kopi luwak in large Indonesian supermarkets is from US$100 per kilogram (five times the price of a high quality local arabica coffee).”[6]
“The traditional method of collecting feces from wild civets has given way to intensive farming methods in which civets in battery cage systems are force fed the cherries.”[7]


Now let us address the ridicules claim that camel urine causes MERS virus in Saudi arabia, Sharif in a video of his, strawmaned world health organization and claimed that camel urine causes MERS virus, this is a strawman, in the original article cited by Sharif nowhere does WHO state that camel urine causes MERS, infact they state the causes of MERS are unknown and some speculated that infected bats caused the virus
“Source of the virus
MERS-CoV is a zoonotic virus that is transmitted from animals to humans. The origins of the virus are not fully understood but, according to the analysis of different virus genomes, it is believed that it originated in bats and was transmitted to camels sometime in the distant past.”[8]

The Camel Urine part only reads that drinking it escalate the Virus symptoms or cause more side effects, and that is it, Camel Urine Does Not Cause the virus on it self, infact if camel urine causes the virus, why aren’t camels infected with the virus themselves or carried them? And sharif claim atheists think better?


And that is it, this is how he strawmanned WHO and , I’m not stating that it’s ok to drink camel urine, all what I say is Don’t strawman WHO and don’t make idiotic claims that they don’t make



[1] http://sunnah.com/bukhari/9/17
[2] Al-Fatih Al-Qadir by Shukani vol.2 page.92
[3] http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266
[4] http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-higher-iqs/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarin
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
[7] Ibid
[8] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/mers-cov/en/

37 comments:

  1. "regardless of the fact that it’s only exclusive as a tribal practice to Saudi arabia and not the rest of 50+ muslim countries around the world"

    thats not he point. the point is that muhammad taugh to drink camel urine (Sahih Bukhari 8:82:794)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure you didn't watch his video, he never even mentioned that hadith, his point was regarded towards the allegation that camel urine causes MERS virus
      Not the hadith persay

      Delete
    2. yeah you're i didnt watch the video. anyway are u gonna respond to his isis video? thats one his good videos and the reply that was in a youtube video by an islamc apologist made no sense and didnt adress his points

      Delete
    3. I'm probably gonna try to find some more videos of his, his isis video will be addressed eventually , just like how the masked arab will get one final reply after he finish his isis series
      As for that muslim apologists his name is Dr haitham Talat, i watched his video, although he addressed some of his points he did left behind some others like how sharif resorted to an appeal to authrotiy fallacy when he claimed that isis leaders are islamic scholars, i guess he didn't know and took advantage of such fallacy

      Delete
    4. its not an appeal to authority. appeal to authority would be like: stephan hawking is an intelligent scientist. stephan hawking converted to islam, so therefor islam must be true. the people who are in isis have studied there religion very well and they no more about islam than both me and you. do you honestly think that when isis raped yazidi women they just got it out of the blue? do you think that when isis kills over a 1000 iraqis they do it for no reason? if a person kills and rapes people in the 21st century hes called a terroist. if a person kills and rapes people in the 7th century hes a prophet of God and the ultimate role model for all of mankind

      Delete
    5. sorry if you found that comment insulting or offensive, i didnt mean it to be. i just wanna have a ration discussion

      Delete
    6. Nope sorry, it's appeal to authority , he is saying they are islamic scholars, therfore what they do is truly islamic, I can turn the table on him and cite islamic scholars who disagree with isis, infact there are well over 127 islamic scholars who signed a pation against isis, that is alot more scholars than isis have , but what you stated regarding people in isis studying their religion very well is not true at all and will be part of my response but I'll give it to you before I post it here, infact there are multiple studies that take note that isis recruiters knows little about islam

      "they no more about islam than both me and you"
      Evidence ?

      " do you honestly think that when isis raped yazidi women they just got it out of the blue? "
      Why would it matter? Do you honestly think that when muslim scholars state that rape is not allowed in islam they get it out of the blue aswell?

      " do you think that when isis kills over a 1000 iraqis they do it for no reason? "
      Strawman fallacy, I never claimed that, what are their reasons? Did you watch their videos including the burning of the Jordanian piolet? Did you see what was their reason ?


      Sharif state that isis have scholars, these scholars are high authority, therefore isis is true islam , that is appeal to authority

      Delete
    7. "I can turn the table on him and cite islamic scholars who disagree with isis, infact there are well over 127 islamic scholars who signed a pation against isis"

      i never said that all islamic scholars support isis. but some (not all) of those scholars have the same mentality as isis. so they might not support them but some of them teach the same things that they do.

      " there are multiple studies that take note that isis recruiters knows little about islam"

      evidence?

      "Why would it matter?"

      my point is isis is doing what muhammad did and taught. for example when muhammad took captives, isis do the same thing when they take yazadi women as captives.

      "Did you watch their videos including the burning of the Jordanian piolet? Did you see what was their reason ?"

      there reason was supposedly that he killed people. well duh of course people will die. but does that give isis the right to massacre people?

      Delete
    8. There has been multiple leaked documents of isis recrutes filling Their Infos and their Infosys reveal poor knowledge in islam
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-recruits-islam-sharia-religion-faith-syria-iraq-a7193086.html
      https://www.rt.com/news/356091-isis-recruits-islam-ignorance/
      http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f94ff7f1e294118956b049a51548b33/islamic-state-gets-know-nothing-recruits-and-rejoices

      I find it a Iittle bit strange you don't know about this, these leaked documents have been a viral hit in news

      First you cited no sources no references as to how isis are doing what muhammad is doing, you also neglected moderate muslims like you are claiming they are not doing what muhammad is doing and taught
      As for captives, what is your point? Captives means prisoner of war, something we still do even today, what's wrong with it?

      Yes their reasons is that he killed people including children and innocent women, why do you think people join them? It's because they have this mentality of "we are the protectors of the muslims , we protect them from the evil imperialist west"
      These reasons are backed by political aspect not religious , you just admitted that with the example of the Jordanian piolet


      Did you read their publication in their magazine dabig titled "why do we hate you and why we fight you"?

      Delete
    9. LOL! i just read some of the articale and it said that isis bought islam for dummies so that must mean that isis are ignorant about islam LOL!

      "First you cited no sources no references as to how isis are doing what muhammad is doing"

      Abu dawud volume 2 chapter 43/44 2155

      "Did you read their publication in their magazine dabig titled "why do we hate you and why we fight you"?"

      I find it so funny that you quoted that. none of those reasons were poltical they said that they hated the west because they reject God, they allow gay marriage, they critise islam, etc. they even mock the muslims who say that "islam is a religion of peace"

      Delete
  2. "Abu dawud volume 2 chapter 43/44 2155 "
    Text

    "LOL! i just read some of the articale and it said that isis bought islam for dummies so that must mean that isis are ignorant about islam LOL!"
    In your first comment you said you didn't mean to offend now you mock me and laugh? How about you read the articles first then comment

    "I find it so funny that you quoted that. none of those reasons were poltical they said that they hated the west because they reject God"
    I cited it because I knew you didn't read it, and yes I said you didn't read it, you just read peices there and there and cherry picked parts you like, unlike me who actually read the entire magazine
    The part of westren hatred is not rela5ed to fighting them, don't strawman them, the magazine even says at the end of the chapter that the only way for isis to stop fighting is that if non muslims enter covenant with isis, they state imperialist reasons as to why they fight them, which is not the same as for why they hate them

    Why to fight does not mean why they hate, don't strawman and mix both

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Text"

      5.AbU Sa'eed Al-KhudrI
      narrated that the Messenger of
      Allah sent an expedition to
      Awas on the Day of Uunain, and
      they met the enemy, fought them,
      and won the battle. They captured
      some slaves, but some of the
      Companions of the Messenger of
      Allah felt uncomfortable in
      having relations with them because
      of their pagan husbands. At this,
      Allah revealed: "And chaste, free
      women, except for those whom
      your right hand possesses..."111
      meaning that they are allowed for

      Delete
    2. Allowed for sex. They are halal

      Delete
    3. you after their waiting periods have finished. (Sahih)

      You can read the full pdf here: https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/sunan-abu-dawud-volume-2-ahadith-1161-2174.pdf

      Delete
    4. "Allowed for sex. They are halal"

      what sex? what type of sex? what form of sex? in what context? for what reason?

      your statement is vague and ambiguous

      Delete
    5. I dont understand what ur trying to prove. Its quite clear; The women were halal for sexual intercourse,to be used as ma malakat aymanukum,after a waiting period,as the verse 4:24 says. Now whats vague or ambiguos about that? Its simple and clear.I have no idea what ur talking about or what ur point is.

      Delete
    6. i'm not proving anything I'm not the one making any claim here, you are, i'm questioning your logic, so what form of sex we are talking about? what do you mean by sex?is it rape? is it consensual? if so, where are your evidence?

      Delete
    7. Common sense tells us that no woman would consent to have sex with someone who just killed her family/tribe,especially if she is married and taken away from her husband. Put yourself in that situation.

      Why is that so hard to understand

      Delete
    8. that is called moral realism, it's subjective but let me address it, no it's not common sense, first how do you know her entire family/tripe were killed? your later statement contradict your comment, if her family was killed how is her husband is still alive?
      is her husband alive or not, and how do you know they even had sex, we have no evidence that suggest these women had sexual intercourse in the first place, the only evidence we have is that they had the permission to do so, but not a single evidence suggest they were subjected to sexual intercourse, and even so, where are your evidence they didn't consent

      what you are saying is probably true to some extent but you made the statement that sex was occurred, but no evidence was provided, and no consent was given, can you provide your evidence?

      Delete
    9. ""Abu hanifa said: "Do not marry...married women, except those whom your right hand possesses [ i.e. slave women ]" , was revealed in connection with a woman who had a husband, was taken as a captive , and whose [ new ] **master had intercourse
      with her, after waiting one menstrual period** [ to be sure she was not pregnant ]"" .“The.Islamic.Law.of.Nations:.Shaybani’s.Siyar”.,.translated. by Majid Khadduri [ The Johns Hopkins
      12:kkUniversity Press , 2001 ] , pp. 116-118



      I didnt say "entire" family,tribe. Im just saying that a woman would not willingly have sex with someone who just fought and probably killed members of her tribe/family.well, it does not much matter whether specifically her relatives were killed or not. the point is; He is the enemy,normally people dont like their enemies,and ur telling me they were willing for sex? After being captured and taken away from her husband (speaking for this particular hadith), she saw no problem in that?

      Also I think,again it does not much whether they had sex or not in that event. The problem is that islam permits such an action,i.e adultery. You are sleeping with (probably raping) someone else's wife,you are taking away her from her family and using as sex slave. This is not something I could accept as morally right. And you are trying to Justify this.


      So why did you say im partially right? What do u mean by that?

      Delete
    10. """Abu hanifa said: "Do not marry...married women, except those whom your right hand possesses [ i.e. slave women ]" , was revealed in connection with a woman who had a husband, was taken as a captive , and whose [ new ] **master had intercourse
      with her, after waiting one menstrual period** [ to be sure she was not pregnant ]"" .“The.Islamic.Law.of.Nations:.Shaybani’s.Siyar”.,.translated. by Majid Khadduri [ The Johns Hopkins
      12:kkUniversity Press , 2001 ] , pp. 116-118"


      i could not varify this source, is the braket that has been added that state that the master had sexual intercourse was part of a nascent tafsir? can you provide a link directly to the article or the source? it better not be wikiislam or answering islam

      " Im just saying that a woman would not willingly have sex with someone who just fought and probably killed members of her tribe/family."
      understandable, but you still need to provide a classical tafsir that state sexual intercourse has been occurred forcibly

      "He is the enemy,normally people dont like their enemies,and ur telling me they were willing for sex?"
      no, in fact i doubt there was sex in the first place, i'm not saying anything at all, i don't accept hadith tradition as reliable, i just don't like misrepresentations, if they are doing it because they are their enemies based on this logic this could be an act of retribution or revenge

      "The problem is that islam permits such an action" and why is that a problem? say for example i captured a captive, and she consented to sex, will you consider that a problem so long as she consented?, if islam didn't allow it you would say "she consented why didn't islam allow it, you see? islam suppress your sexuality"

      my point here is why do you consider it a problem?

      "You are sleeping with (probably raping) someone else's wife,you are taking away her from her family and using as sex slave. This is not something I could accept as morally right."
      first you said it doesn't matter if they had sex in that event now you consider it a problem if they actually had sex? this is a self contradiction

      "And you are trying to Justify this."
      justifying what?

      "So why did you say im partially right? What do u mean by that?"
      you are right particularly that it's not ok to have nonconsensual sex, that is my point (if that is what you are aiming at)

      Delete
    11. This is kinda weird but,ironically,this quote was from an apologist article trying to refute "rape of captives" claim.
      The article on slavery at the bottom of the page: http://www.quransearch.com/karim/Karim_-_articles_islamic_answers_-_part_3/index.html

      And you are WRONG. The part mentioning sex happened is not in parenthesis,they are direct words of Abu Hanifa.

      ""understandable, but you still need to provide a classical tafsir that state sexual intercourse has been occurred forcibly ""

      No I dont. If you accept my assumptions here,if ur clever enough to think that those women couldnt have consented and if they really had sex,then its nonconsensual sex,i.e. rape. I dont need to go find a tafsir saying 'they raped women'.

      So where is the evidence that the victim whom a particular murderer stabbed to death did not actually want to die? Maybe he was willing to die? Common sense.


      ""First you said it doesn't matter if they had sex in that event now you consider it a problem if they actually had sex? this is a self contradiction ""

      No,Im saying its a problem anyway,whether they did that or not. Even If they didnt,Muhammad's permitting that is a problem. The concept of sexual slavery itself is a problem,using captive women as such,even if married,thats a problem to me. Now ur gonna ask why is it a problem,i told you these before,no need to repeat.Just like the sahaba who were reluctant for intercourse bcs the women were married, and asked Muhammad about it,I too think its something bad. If they actually had sex,then its a bigger problem. Now that ur insisting they did Not,im focusing on it. That simple.


      If ur so convinced that consensual sex should not be a problem,then fornication should be halal,too. I cant have sex with my gf bcs its haram but I can with my slaves. So whats wrong about two people willingly have sex outside of marriage? If its morally wrong,then why is not owner-slave relationship who seems much more non-consensual?

      By the way,if u say hadiths are not reliable and u dont believe these narrations,then there is no point discussing them at all.

      Delete
    12. i was actually expecting it to come out of that, i looked it up and the closest one i found was in answering Christianity


      "And you are WRONG. The part mentioning sex happened is not in parenthesis,they are direct words of Abu Hanifa."
      wrong in what? in translation? or in my counter argument?

      "No I dont. If you accept my assumptions here,if ur clever enough to think that those women couldnt have consented and if they really had sex"
      yes you HAVE to, if i get to say skeptical77 captured women in his battle and raped them
      in contrast you didn't even had sex, doesn't that logically follow that i must provide evidence for my claim?


      "So where is the evidence that the victim whom a particular murderer stabbed to death did not actually want to die?"
      that is an oxymoron

      "
      No,Im saying its a problem anyway,whether they did that or not."
      why?

      "Muhammad's permitting that is a problem. "
      again why?

      "he concept of sexual slavery itself is a problem"
      the emphasis is the word consent

      "using captive women as such,even if married,thats a problem to me. Now ur gonna ask why is it a problem,i told you these before,no need to repeat.Just like the sahaba who were reluctant for intercourse bcs the women were married, and asked Muhammad about it,I too think its something bad. If they actually had sex,then its a bigger problem. Now that ur insisting they did Not,im focusing on it. That simple."
      again, why allowing it is a problem if they consent?

      "If ur so convinced that consensual sex should not be a problem,then fornication should be halal,too."
      that is a non sequitur

      " I cant have sex with my gf bcs its haram but I can with my slaves. So whats wrong about two people willingly have sex outside of marriage?"
      in broader terms this is a self contradiction and not an exception

      "If its morally wrong,then why is not owner-slave relationship who seems much more non-consensual?"
      evidence?

      "By the way,if u say hadiths are not reliable and u dont believe these narrations,then there is no point discussing them at all."
      first you are the one who brought them to me, i didn't bring them up, second i lost count to how many times i said it, i don't believe hadith tradition to be reliable, but i have a problem when someone strawman it, take a look at this for example

      “A crafty person, a miser and one who badly treats those under his authority will not enter Paradise.”
      source:
      Tirmidi 1947 and 1964
      now this hadith give the impression that a slave owner is not allowed to treat his slave badly (including rape) i could easily use this hadith to prove my point, but here is the issue, this hadith is classified as Dai'f weak, unreliable, so i won't use it, this hadith is found in article
      Does Islam permit rape of female slaves or prisoners ?
      written by Kevin Abdullah Karim
      from answering Christianity website, that is why i no longer visit these websites

      Delete
    13. ""in contrast you didn't even had sex""

      Well,Abu hanifa said one of them actually had sex. I provided evidence. So what's the problem now? If this happened,and if you accept that'd probably be nonconsensual,then its rape.

      If they were not gonna do it,then why are they asking Muhammad about it? Why are they saying "some of us felt reluctant to touch them", if there was no such an intention?

      You still say if its consensual then no problem. Well,okay. Thats what you think,you still fail to understand my take on this. Anyway,lets put it aside. Im trying to prove here that they actually had sex and it was nonconsensual.

      And Why do you avoid answering my simple questions?

      I see no substance in ur post. Just an answer written only for the sake of answering.


      Im tired of this,probably last one

      Delete
    14. first we actually have no clarification until we check his sources, where are his evidence, do we have ijma' (general consensus) of all scholars that they actually had sex? these were not evidence, these were anecdotal
      Infact, i Do have evidence of my own that they didn't have sex until they converted willingly
      so just like you claim to have evidence i do have my own aswell, so you see my point?

      "If this happened,and if you accept that'd probably be nonconsensual,then its rape."
      if that was the case if we did find ijma' from nearly all classical scholars that they had sex and it was nonconsensual, then you could say it was rape

      "If they were not gonna do it,then why are they asking Muhammad about it? "
      will you not ask your father for an advice before committing an act?

      " Im trying to prove here that they actually had sex and it was nonconsensual. "
      i'm merely questioning not proving anything here, i'm acting as the skeptic, but you, you said they actually had sex

      "
      And Why do you avoid answering my simple questions? "
      avoid what questions? i'm deconstructing their logic
      do i really need to make a definitive answer? can't i question the logic and the bases of your questions to see if they were logical or rational?
      if they were irrational why would i need to answer them?

      "Im tired of this,probably last one"
      the feeling is mutual

      Delete

    15. Ok then show me ur own evidence that they converted to islam? Im curious

      you missed my point,if they were not gonna do it,why are they asking Muhammad about it? I dont go ask my dad about things I wont do.

      Delete
    16. last time i saw it it was in Qurtubi tafsir, but i might have to look it up be patient

      Delete
    17. Okay. If u find any clear evidence that those women in that particular event became muslims,let me know.
      Im waiting

      Delete
    18. Never mind here found it
      "واعلم أن مذهب الشافعي ومن قال بقوله من العلماء أن المسبية من عبدة الأوثان وغيرهم من الكفار الذين لا كتاب لهم لا يحل وطؤها بملك اليمين حتى تسلم فما دامت على دينها فهي محرمة ، وهؤلاء المسبيات كن من مشركي العرب عبدة الأوثان ، فيئول هذا الحديث وشبهه على أنهن أسلمن ، وهذا التأويل لا بد منه ، والله أعلم . "
      Translation:
      "and according to al shafi madhab that according to some scholars that the captive of the polytheists and others from non muslims those who has no book should not have sexual intercourse with them until they convert, so long as she is on her own religion she is forbidden from sex, and those captives (in reference to awtas in relation to the verse) were one of the arab polytheists idol worship, then this hadith is interpreted as they became muslims, and this interpretation is certine, and god knows best"
      Source:

      sharih Sahih muslim by Imam Nawawi book of suckling, chapter regarding sex with captives
      http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=4346&idto=4348&bk_no=53&ID=647

      Delete
    19. "then this hadith is interpreted as they became muslims"


      Well,just an assumption made years after the event with no evidence at all.

      Delete
    20. the same thing can be said about your own source

      Delete
  3. You studied islam for 8 years? Wow.

    What new did you learn and decided to revert back? Why did the reasons of your apostasy turn out to be false?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been saying that from the start of responding to the masked arab because people asked me who I'm i to even respond, so yah i did have self study for 7-8 years, I reverted back after I learned how islamic tradtion is unreliable based on many academic findings, also when I developed more and more critical thinking , i found out that many accusations are based on emotions rather than scientific thinking, they turned to be false (most of them at least not all, I still find some flaws in traditional islam or relogion in general ) because they are based on lack of understanding in islamic science, also many like the claim of muhammad pedophilia is based on lack of understanding of critical thinking and scientific findings

      Also the fact that I don't want to be part of the new atheism community where everyone pats each other in the back for not believing in a god played a part in it

      Delete
  4. Hi, my question is unrelated to the topic of this article. But, I want to ask you about the claims of Islamic Scholars and Apologists about verse number 5 chapter 10 of the Quran. They claim that the word "نور" means a reflected light, or light from another source, which is a scientific miracle in the Quran, since it hasn't been discovered til 30 or 40 years ago that the moon doesn't have its own light. Well, I speak Arabic and I has been searching for anything that supports that claim and I couldn't. So, is there anything in traditional Islam, and Quranist Islamic view that supports that claim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i personally don't accept scientific miracles claim duo to the fact that the quran is not a book of science

      Delete