Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2013, 07:56 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 06:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Stating "I'll take your points directly", and following up with none of the points is not taking on the points directly. That's not a very convincing 'argument'. In fact, it isn't an argument at all--more like an outburst pretending to be an argument.

Exactly as I predicted.

What do I win?

I did make an argument: I simply denied that your position had a basis, and you could have provided that basis, if it was the case that you wanted to substantiate your view.

I knew when I asked you to provide an explanation for your position, you would not.

Thanks for playing.

I found the quote that pretty much summed up how nonsensical the position you are attempting to take is, disregarding all of the other nonsense, which has all been addressed, almost superfluously:

I cannot bring myself to that level of moral relativism to accept that kind of act as on the same level as social conservatives trying to inject religion into politics. I don't feel the need to temper my judgement of acts of individuals in societies that have norms that I find reprehensible.

poolboyg88, actually addressed this already, also, but you went directly into straw man, move the goalpost, mode, once you realized that you were blatantly incorrect and cornered.

Social conservatives weren't even being discussed, specifically, they just fall in. We were (or I guess I was) discussing religion in general, mainly Christianity, given that it's the obvious majority in America.

They also, don't "try to inject religion in politics". Where do you live? In reality, in the US, unless you have the endorsement of religion, mainly Christianity, you are not getting elected, which is a requirement for having any kind of societal influence with regard to policy. Religion is used almost exclusively, especially with regard to Republican politics, pandering, but widespread among both parties, immorally, to get elected to office and in support of policy. I shouldn't even have to mention the resulting policies (past and present, and resulting consequences), as an inherent result of this reality.

You must be as ignorant to the meaning of 'moral relativism' as you are to 'the left' and 'liberal'.

What you are saying is that you are not willing to accept any immoral action taken with regard to religion in America (what I have been talking about the entire thread), on the same level as immoral actions taken by Islamic fascists and extremists elsewhere in the world. You also are going a step further, to say that you are not even going to look at any surrounding circumstances, history, etc., as any objective, rational individual would do in the analysis of any relevant situation.

Correct me if I missed something.

When religion affects America, or religion in America affects the world negatively (because of immoral actions, directly or indirectly), it can't possible be immoral (or as immoral), because that is okay religion (or you are ignoring it completely, for convenience); but when it's Islam in the Middle East or Africa, etc., it's obviously immoral, because that's bad religion. Must be because we are taking actions to be relativistically, based on who is committing the acts.

Again, did I miss something?

You are trying to make scapegoats and be blatantly hypocritical, from what I can tell.

My point from the beginning was that is not happening over here. Keep that bullshit over there on your side.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:04 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 07:56 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 06:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Stating "I'll take your points directly", and following up with none of the points is not taking on the points directly. That's not a very convincing 'argument'. In fact, it isn't an argument at all--more like an outburst pretending to be an argument.

Exactly as I predicted.

What do I win?

I did make an argument: I simply denied that your position had a basis, and you could have provided that basis, if it was the case that you wanted to substantiate your view.

I knew when I asked you to provide an explanation for your position, you would not.

Thanks for playing.

Nothing but word salad up to this point. If you call just claiming something as bull an argument, I suppose you are great at doing that. But until this point, you have not been making any substantive points.

I see that you enclosed an actual response under a Spoiler button. So for anyone missing the content of TrulyX's post, I'll edit to make it more visible without the need to click.


Quote:I found the quote that pretty much summed up how nonsensical the position you are attempting to take is, disregarding all of the other nonsense, which has all been addressed, almost superfluously:

I cannot bring myself to that level of moral relativism to accept that kind of act as on the same level as social conservatives trying to inject religion into politics. I don't feel the need to temper my judgement of acts of individuals in societies that have norms that I find reprehensible.

poolboyg88, actually addressed this already, also, but you went directly into straw man, move the goalpost, mode, once you realized that you were blatantly incorrect and cornered.

OK, so finally you actually formulate a specific point of criticism. You don't quite explain how a straw man is being used, how I'm moving the goalposts, or how you can claim to know what I realize, so we'll continue.

Quote:Social conservatives weren't even being discussed, specifically, they just fall in. We were (or I guess I was) discussing religion in general, mainly Christianity, given that it's the obvious majority in America.

So perhaps this is where you think I am injecting some sort of logical fallacy? It should be obvious to all but the most uninformed that social conservative is the term used to describe politicians who advocate faith (Christianity in particular) as part of politics. Social conservatives advocate things like school prayer, opposition to abortion, resistance to gay marriage, anti-science advocacy through opposition to evolution education, lament the 'war on christmas' nonsense, etc.

This is not in any way moving the goalposts or changing the group of people we were talking about. It should be very obvious to everyone (except you I guess) that social conservative is precisely the term one uses to describe individuals who tend to impose their religious views on others in the US.


Quote:They also, don't "try to inject religion in politics". Where do you live? In reality, in the US, unless you have the endorsement of religion, mainly Christianity, you are not getting elected, which is a requirement for having any kind of societal influence with regard to policy. Religion is used almost exclusively, especially with regard to Republican politics, pandering, but widespread among both parties, immorally, to get elected to office and in support of policy. I shouldn't even have to mention the resulting policies (past and present, and resulting consequences), as an inherent result of this reality.

What color is the sky in the world you live in. Social conservatives don't try to inject religion in politics? Really? Are you that uninformed or are you just trolling? At this point I'm not really sure. You really think both parties use religion the same? In American politics, I'm conservative but differ with the GOP on the social conservative policies and in particular pushing policies that appease the evangelical social conservative wing of the party. You really are uninformed if you think the Democrats advocate faith based laws like the GOP does.

Still no straw men burned or goal posts moved. On to the next section.

Quote:You must be as ignorant to the meaning of 'moral relativism' as you are to 'the left' and 'liberal'.

What you are saying is that you are not willing to accept any immoral action taken with regard to religion in America (what I have been talking about the entire thread), on the same level as immoral actions taken by Islamic fascists and extremists elsewhere in the world. You also are going a step further, to say that you are not even going to look at any surrounding circumstances, history, etc., as any objective, rational individual would do in the analysis of any relevant situation.

Correct me if I missed something.

When religion affects America, or religion in America affects the world negatively (because of immoral actions, directly or indirectly), it can't possible be immoral (or as immoral), because that is okay religion (or you are ignoring it completely, for convenience); but when it's Islam in the Middle East or Africa, etc., it's obviously immoral, because that's bad religion. Must be because we are taking actions to be relativistically, based on who is committing the acts.

Again, did I miss something?

I am saying:
-executing gay people in Islam ≠ opposing gay marriage
-harassing and beating people for hair and dress ≠ stern lectures about the decay of morals
-executing people for apostasy ≠ advocating school prayer

Sam Harris describes his case for an objective morality, that if we define a measure of the level of suffering caused by the organization of a society, we can make a call that, for instance, executing gay people is worse than not letting them get married. If we take this one specific example, do you really want to rely on the context of the society and reserve judgement on whether one is worse than the other. You are the one who takes the extreme position of using context to excuse what would by by any objective standard a more objectionable behavior.

What I am saying is yes, I don't give one flying fuck what the context is, what the history is, what their faith says, when deciding we are morally superior when we decide not to execute gay people. I am agreeing with Sam Harris that if you want to see a great way to make women and children die, you would organize your society EXACTLY like the fundamentalists of Afghanistan want to organize their society.

OK, still no straw men, no goal posts moved, no demonstration of how you can claim that I realize I'm wrong.

Quote:You are trying to make scapegoats and be blatantly hypocritical, from what I can tell.

My point from the beginning was that is not happening over here. Keep that bullshit over there on your side.

OK, back to unsupported assertions and word salad. What am I making into scapegoats? What is the hypocrisy?


I can tell you are not used to defending your arguments. My replies might piss you off, but you do not back up your assertions with examples or clear points. You are obviously used to being surrounded by people who generally agree with you (or don't care to argue). You make unsupported assertions and think what is obvious to you should be understood by everyone else.

If for instance you are going to claim I am using a straw man argument, you might want to actually say what you think the straw man was in my argument. I think you might have meant my use of the word social conservative in place of Christian, but if that was the case, you don't actually understand the common meaning of the term social conservative. But moreover, you are misusing the characterization of straw man--if anything social conservative is actually a more difficult class of people to defend vis-a-vis their propensity to push religion on others. So I was actually describing something worse than just Christianity in general. That's not moving the goal posts or resorting to straw man at all--that's relying on the weakest possible support of my case that even the worst of offenders in the West are better than common offenses in Islam. You might disagree with my assertion, but there was no resort to logical fallacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:07 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 06:42 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 04:33 PM)I and I Wrote:  Sam Harris is one blow job away from using the very classic cliche "the people that don't like the religious and political oppressive system of Israel.....well they must be racist. His dick is so hard for wanting to say that.

My prediction: he will say that somewhere within a years time. Bet anyone?

Drinking Beverage

And can someone explain why mr pretend atheist hasn't criticized the religious nation of Israel that was founded on and for religious purposes?

You don't really have to guess what Sam Harris would say on the topic, he already has. Took almost 30 seconds effort to google for this:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam...liberalism

--------
Consider the position of Israel, which is so regularly vilified by the Left. As a secularist and a nonbeliever—and as a Jew—I find the idea of a Jewish state obnoxious. But if ever a state organized around a religion was justified, it is the Jewish state of Israel, given the world’s propensity for genocidal anti-Semitism. And if ever criticism of a religious state was unjustified, it is the criticism of Israel that ceaselessly flows from every corner of the Muslim world, given the genocidal aspirations so many Muslims freely confess regarding the Jews. Those who see moral parity between the two sides of Israeli-Palestinian conflict are ignoring rather obvious differences in intent.

My fellow liberals generally refuse to concede that the religious beliefs of groups like Hamas merit any special concern. And yet the slogan of Hamas, as set forth in Article 8 of its charter, reads: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

--------

He goes on to quote more from the Hamas Charter that makes clear they advocate Jihad and reject all peaceful means of resolving their problems with the Jews. Harris is a little more nuanced that I&I would suppose, saving his specific charges of antisemitism for Muslims while at the same time making clear he finds the idea of a Jewish state 'obnoxious'.

I don't think very many on the left are antisemitic like I&I is. Generally when you are so far left that you reach around and meet Pat Buchanan, you aren't really part of the mainstream left anymore.


So he considers himself a jew (name for someone who believes in the religion known as judaism) and he considers himself an atheist? WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS DOES THIS BLOW HARD PIECE OF SHIT DO?

he believes in the idotic religious idea that people who believe in judaism are of a special "race" of course this idea is a complete pile of warm bullshit and of course is as racist as an idea can get, which means sam harris is a racist believer/atheist. nice.

What apparently you and Sam racist Harris doesn't understand is that....WHAT IF, just WHAT IF muslims are pissed off because a group of europeans came to that land and started attacking people around them and started making muslims in that land live in a racist fascist oppressive appartheid system. WHAT IF FUCKING THAT is the reason they are pissed off.

there must be something about your brain that makes it incapable for you to understand that people being forced to live in a racist appartheid system might piss them off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2013 11:13 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 06:02 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(23-04-2013 10:24 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  So, the main belief being perpetuated here (glancing at some of the posts) is that the actions of a situational minority (bred in regions invaded, occupied, plundered, de-democratized, radicalised to serve short term goals for the past century) are representative of a billion people across the globe. Absolutely brilliant. That's not irrational and destructive at all.

Allow us all to follow THIS logic, if you can: "If Christian/Hindu/Jewish etc. fundamentalists get the opportunities to be terrorists, like Muslim fundamentalists get, they will become as intolerant and dangerous as Muslim terrorists. All religions have the potentials to make terrorists at any time. Even Buddhism, a so called peaceful religion can make terrorists. I hope you know how Buddhists in Myanmar killed and displaced thousands of poor Muslims. No one should forget about anti-Muslim pogrom of Gujarat in 2002. 2000 innocent Muslims were killed by Hindu extremists."

Let us now commence starting threads across the web, and making it a talking point for people of a particular political nature, to equate these minority few to all of Buddhism, Buddhists, and to any slightly "yellow skinned" people.

Don't be dense.

TulyX is arguing that extremism in Islam is equivalent or even less bad than extremism in other religions in the West. He is arguing that this is because of 'context' in the West of liberal democracy requires holding religious nutters to a higher standard. I was disagreeing with that argument of TrulyX.

Are you now going to deny there are differences in the norms of Islamic societies? This is the list of my objections to common practices in Islamic countries that I posted upthread:
Quote:We do not execute people for being gay, we do not force women to wear burkas and restrictive garments or blow up schools for women to keep them uneducated, we do not condone honor killings, we do not round up youths and forcibly shave their heads and beat them for their appearance, we do not have morality police harass the public, we do not appeal to religious courts as the ultimate authority in our legal system, we do not condone killing people for converting their religion, and we do not condone issuing death threats for insulting religion.

If you think much of what I list above is rare, you are either obtuse or willfully ignorant.

Just pointing out that the User didn't read the post or just didn't care.

In his reply he continued to perpetuate his belief here that the actions of a situational minority (bred in regions invaded, occupied, plundered, de-democratized, radicalised to serve short term goals for the past century) are still representative of a billion people across the globe.

I'm still waiting for the anti-Buddhism or "yellow" people threads.

I'm aware the next reply will be "But no, most Muslims/brown people are violent. And the evil liberals are overlooking that FACT." Which then I'll post my original reply.

I have no interest in this marry go ground. Everyone, continue on. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 06:42 PM)BryanS Wrote:  You don't really have to guess what Sam Harris would say on the topic, he already has. Took almost 30 seconds effort to google for this:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam...liberalism

--------
Consider the position of Israel, which is so regularly vilified by the Left. As a secularist and a nonbeliever—and as a Jew—I find the idea of a Jewish state obnoxious. But if ever a state organized around a religion was justified, it is the Jewish state of Israel, given the world’s propensity for genocidal anti-Semitism. And if ever criticism of a religious state was unjustified, it is the criticism of Israel that ceaselessly flows from every corner of the Muslim world, given the genocidal aspirations so many Muslims freely confess regarding the Jews. Those who see moral parity between the two sides of Israeli-Palestinian conflict are ignoring rather obvious differences in intent.

My fellow liberals generally refuse to concede that the religious beliefs of groups like Hamas merit any special concern. And yet the slogan of Hamas, as set forth in Article 8 of its charter, reads: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

--------

He goes on to quote more from the Hamas Charter that makes clear they advocate Jihad and reject all peaceful means of resolving their problems with the Jews. Harris is a little more nuanced that I&I would suppose, saving his specific charges of antisemitism for Muslims while at the same time making clear he finds the idea of a Jewish state 'obnoxious'.

I don't think very many on the left are antisemitic like I&I is. Generally when you are so far left that you reach around and meet Pat Buchanan, you aren't really part of the mainstream left anymore.


So he considers himself a jew (name for someone who believes in the religion known as judaism) and he considers himself an atheist? WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS DOES THIS BLOW HARD PIECE OF SHIT DO?

he believes in the idotic religious idea that people who believe in judaism are of a special "race" of course this idea is a complete pile of warm bullshit and of course is as racist as an idea can get, which means sam harris is a racist believer/atheist. nice.

What apparently you and Sam racist Harris doesn't understand is that....WHAT IF, just WHAT IF muslims are pissed off because a group of europeans came to that land and started attacking people around them and started making muslims in that land live in a racist fascist oppressive appartheid system. WHAT IF FUCKING THAT is the reason they are pissed off.

there must be something about your brain that makes it incapable for you to understand that people being forced to live in a racist appartheid system might piss them off.

Secular Jew is not a contradiction in terms. Jew can refer both to a religion and an ethnicity + culture in a way that most other religions do not. It is not an uncommon thing to find an atheist Jew. Many Jews turned away from their religion in large part because of the decimation of their populations in WWII.

I bet the Muslims are pissed that Israel planted themselves right in their midst. But they are there now--for around half a century now. Most of the people fighting today were not alive during the original war. Most of the 'refugees' living in camps have never actually lived in the 'homeland' of Israel. What is your solution to this problem? Do you allow for a political solution that allows an Israel to continue to exist, or do you think they should be wiped out like Hamas advocates?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:10 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 06:02 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Don't be dense.

TulyX is arguing that extremism in Islam is equivalent or even less bad than extremism in other religions in the West. He is arguing that this is because of 'context' in the West of liberal democracy requires holding religious nutters to a higher standard. I was disagreeing with that argument of TrulyX.

Are you now going to deny there are differences in the norms of Islamic societies? This is the list of my objections to common practices in Islamic countries that I posted upthread:

If you think much of what I list above is rare, you are either obtuse or willfully ignorant.

Just pointing out that the User didn't read the post or just didn't care.

In his reply he continued to perpetuate his belief here that the actions of a situational minority (bred in regions invaded, occupied, plundered, de-democratized, radicalised to serve short term goals for the past century) are still representative of a billion people across the globe.

I'm still waiting for the anti-Buddhism or "yellow" people threads.

I'm aware the next reply will be "But no, most Muslims/brown people are violent. And the evil liberals are overlooking that FACT." Which then I'll post my original reply.

I have no interest in this marry go ground. Everyone, continue on. Dodgy

You're trying to make this about race. Muslim ≠ brown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 04:33 PM)I and I Wrote:  Sam Harris is one blow job away from using the very classic cliche "the people that don't like the religious and political oppressive system of Israel.....well they must be racist. His dick is so hard for wanting to say that.

My prediction: he will say that somewhere within a years time. Bet anyone?

Drinking Beverage

And can someone explain why mr pretend atheist hasn't criticized the religious nation of Israel that was founded on and for religious purposes?

Yeah.... that must be it. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 11:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  So he considers himself a jew (name for someone who believes in the religion known as judaism) and he considers himself an atheist? WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS DOES THIS BLOW HARD PIECE OF SHIT DO?

he believes in the idotic religious idea that people who believe in judaism are of a special "race" of course this idea is a complete pile of warm bullshit and of course is as racist as an idea can get, which means sam harris is a racist believer/atheist. nice.

What apparently you and Sam racist Harris doesn't understand is that....WHAT IF, just WHAT IF muslims are pissed off because a group of europeans came to that land and started attacking people around them and started making muslims in that land live in a racist fascist oppressive appartheid system. WHAT IF FUCKING THAT is the reason they are pissed off.

there must be something about your brain that makes it incapable for you to understand that people being forced to live in a racist appartheid system might piss them off.

Secular Jew is not a contradiction in terms. Jew can refer both to a religion and an ethnicity + culture in a way that most other religions do not. It is not an uncommon thing to find an atheist Jew. Many Jews turned away from their religion in large part because of the decimation of their populations in WWII.

I bet the Muslims are pissed that Israel planted themselves right in their midst. But they are there now--for around half a century now. Most of the people fighting today were not alive during the original war. Most of the 'refugees' living in camps have never actually lived in the 'homeland' of Israel. What is your solution to this problem? Do you allow for a political solution that allows an Israel to continue to exist, or do you think they should be wiped out like Hamas advocates?

Have you ever read or wondered what Israeli politicians say about palestineans or muslims? And since when did Hamas claim it wanted jews wiped out?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 12:05 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:25 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 11:10 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Just pointing out that the User didn't read the post or just didn't care.

In his reply he continued to perpetuate his belief here that the actions of a situational minority (bred in regions invaded, occupied, plundered, de-democratized, radicalised to serve short term goals for the past century) are still representative of a billion people across the globe.

I'm still waiting for the anti-Buddhism or "yellow" people threads.

I'm aware the next reply will be "But no, most Muslims/brown people are violent. And the evil liberals are overlooking that FACT." Which then I'll post my original reply.

I have no interest in this marry go ground. Everyone, continue on. Dodgy

You're trying to make this about race. Muslim ≠ brown.

I wasn't aware you were also targeting Indonesia Muslims (largest population of Muslims on the planet), the European "white" Muslims, other Asian "yellow" Muslims, etc. I'll make sure to include the hipster white Buddhists for those future anti-Buddhism threads.

The threads original question was "With that long windup, is Harris correct that the left is dangerously out of touch with the realities of the kind of threat posed by a devout Muslim faith."

Overlooking the false statements made, the answer is a resounding no. No to "devout" Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, what have you.

You're trying to make a blanket statement which concerns EXTREMISTS. Extremists are detrimental from any religion, or ideology. Anyone can see that.

The blanket statements that Muslim = Extremist is very irrational, bigoted, and dangerous. Perhaps this whole thing was just one big misunderstanding? I can only hope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  Have you ever read or wondered what Israeli politicians say about palestineans or muslims? And since when did Hamas claim it wanted jews wiped out?

I did use Isreal in the sentence describing Hamas wanting to 'wipe them out' and should be clear I mean and meant to say Israel, not all Jews all over the world.

I bet there is a fair amount of hatred going in both directions. Arabs living in Israel though have more rights and a higher standard of living than Jews would have living in Israel's neighboring/nearby countries.

Leader of Hamas has vowed that not one inch of current Israel will be allowed to remain as Israel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/08...62926.html

And according to their charter, this result of not one inch left of Israel will be accomplished by jihad, eschewing political solutions, couple snippets:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm


"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it

as it had eliminated its predecessors."

The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5)

May Allah Pity his Soul

------------------


There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.

The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste

of time(27), an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble

to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain

game. As the Hadith has it:



"The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes

revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wishes among his

worshippers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from

vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and

sorrow." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order

of traditionaries to Muhammed, and by Ahmed whose chain of

transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith,

for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best(28).)


Of course, feel free to read the entire charter which also tells how all lands that have ever been Muslim must always be Muslim, and is considered by Hamas as an "Islamic Waqf". No room for Jews in an Isreal that is one big Islamic Waqf.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: