Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


More than 230 killed in E...
Today at 06:28 PM

Safe spaces
Today at 04:38 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 03:49 PM

25 year old ex Muslim fro...
Yesterday at 06:17 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
Yesterday at 05:47 PM

Egyptian Ex Muslim lookin...
Yesterday at 05:24 PM

Finality of Prophethood ...
Yesterday at 03:46 PM

false?,,,,,,why?
Yesterday at 12:46 PM

What music are you listen...
Yesterday at 03:57 AM

Imam Tawhidi
November 22, 2017, 02:37 PM

Islamophobia is Wrong Wor...
by zeca
November 22, 2017, 01:30 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 21, 2017, 06:30 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: My responses to the masked arab

 (Read 6959 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #60 - March 02, 2016, 01:18 AM

    Except that the versus wasn't an emotion thus your point is irrelevant. More so it doesn't use either word.

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%2818:86:4%29

    Irrelevant as the specific is given in the verse and corpus

    Irrelevant as per the verse.

    Nope as the verse is specific and you are using emotion, You argue is the non-sequitor since you ignore the word itself in the corpus.


    reading through your comment with quotation function is kinda irritating, please don't use it again this will  be my finall reply if you keep using it, plus it's getting late now


    "Except that the versus wasn't an emotion thus your point is irrelevant. More so it doesn't use either word.

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%2818:86:4%29
    "

    my beef is not with Magrib, but with Wajadah, rendering your link a Red herring

    "Irrelevant as the specific is given in the verse and corpus"

    nope it's relevant, a word can have more than one meaning, but it can't have more than one use, so Wajadah can't be for location and visual perspective this will be an internal contradiction


    "Quote
    therefore your argument is a nonsequitor


    Nope as the verse is specific and you are using emotion, You argue is the non-sequitor since you ignore the word itself in the corpus."

    no it's nonsequitor because it doesn't logiclly follow for location to accommodate visual perspective in all cases
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #61 - March 02, 2016, 01:22 AM

    It's far more irritating to read you not quoting things improperly. Please don't do that again.
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #62 - March 02, 2016, 01:35 AM


    again please don't use the Quotation function, i know you are used to it but it's getting annoying to read through your comment , i won't respond further if you use it again, I'm used to " and " quotation marks


    Not happening. It is how I was taught in English, Literature and other writing related courses. My arguments are easy to read as each is from a standard used in both grade school and higher education. your argument is a copout, nothing more.

    Quote
    Again i say the source doesn't say that dolls are only for children, the source cited by you says that Aisha is young, and she had dolls, and there dolls were exceptional since it's forbidden to have dolls that resamble humans, that is the abstract of the article


    Never said it did, strawman.

    It clearly say its, again your problems with English are clearly. It is used the very hadith you reject as grounding for the exception.



    Quote
    how I'm i calling it red herring? i'm making a comment on your quotation Not mine again i will post my comment


    You are arguing that there is a maturity requirement for marriage then link a source with an exception this requirement.

    Quote
    "scholars have agreed that child marriage is not allowed until there is special benefits for her
    scholars agreed that you can't have sex with a child before they are physically capable to handle it


    Thus an exemption to the maturity law. Handling it is subjective as some children that surfer abuse are not physically harmed but mentally. You mit the mental aspect. Also your standards of maturity are based on the beginning of puberty not the end of it.

    Quote
    the masked arab claimed that a man can have sexual intercourse with a child at any age, i showed he mistranslated several sources to justify this claim, and he claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason at all, i demanded evidence for that"


    I am not talking about what he said. I am talking about what you said. There is an exception to marriage outside of maturity. I never said sex. You are injecting MA arguments as if I talking about. I wasn't. That does allow a pedophilia to married a 9 year old. This places said 9 year old wife in an environment which the pedophilia husband can abuse her. Like I said such idea are open to abuse.

    Quote
    I wand you to focus on this part “until the girl can withstand penetration” , this is my biggest issue, this part needs to be addressed,
    I wand you to focus on this part “until the girl can withstand penetration” , this is my biggest issue, this part needs to be addressed,"


    I want you to focus on what I said not what MA said.... You know read the comments from the person you are in a dialogue with.

    Quote
    your statment was as follows

    "The very quote is from your blog. It sets an maturity limit in one case and an age in the other. The age is 9 while your own health science sources shows 9 is not standard. The quote is an exception to the very puberty claim you are making"
    this is a red herring because this is not my main argument


    No it isn't. Read your own blog.

    Quote
    @14:13 the masked arab calls any muslims who question him as “deluded” this is rather an irrational insult when is clearly faced with skepticism however the purpose of this is him citing 2 online videos of muslim clerics affirming that the young age marriage is allowed in islam "

    As I demonstrated above scholars are actually in disagreement regarding the age of sexual intercourse, however this is not my main issue here, the main issue is citing these video is considered an appeal to authority fallacy


    An appeal to authority is when someone is not an expert. Dr.Muhammad Rafat uthman is an expert. So all you have done is show two experts contradicting each other. Also ironically you are calling the Mufti of Egypt a non-expert. Amusing, So in the end you actually only provided one expert for your view but also introduced an extra against your view. You are free to pick and choose but a rational conclusion is that these experts seem unable to agree. Also your own expert agreed with the exemptions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawki_Allam
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa



    Quote
    Translate into: The Jurisprudence have made the judgment in marriage and gave permission to young ones under one condition that they are to be consulted in marriage and they should reach adulthood or pass nine years of age/quote]

    Or, an exception to the rule by an expert.


    Quote
    the reason why i brought this up is because the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 in the quran talks about girls who have not yet menstruated , so i brought up the argument that girls reach puberty at the age of 8-12 in which it occurred BEFORE menstruation


    Not in issues #8.


    "Your own source contradicts you."
    such as? where? and what is my argument? [/quote]

    Issue #8

    Quote
    it's not allowed until they are physically ready


    So MA was right then per your own reference....  

    Quote
    "This is a red herring as I am not talking about what MA said. I am talking about what you said and what source you provided in your own blog. "
    this is not a red herring, I'm addressing the masked arab directly which means if you address me you are then speaking from TMA potion


    Exactly, and I am addressing what you said. There is still an exemption made by experts. You incorrectly thought it was an appeal to an authority which it isn't.

    Quote
    so far you are claiming my sources undermine me yet you provided no logical reason and you didn't even presented my view in the first place to even claim my sources undermine my position


    Yes it did. You made a incorrect claim about an appeal to authority when the source was an expert thus not the reference is not fallacious. You do not know what the fallacy means but use it because you heard someone probably say it to you. Since you claim of a fallacious is wrong your own argument crumbles. More so you cited an expert which shows that there is a major conflict between scholars.

    I presented your view as I specifically identified it by telling you it was issue #8

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


    Quote
    here is my potion
    the masked arab claims that verse 65:4 reference to girls who didn't reach puberty, i asked for evidence for that, then i proceeded that girls who didn't maturated already hit puberty 3 years ago
    then i proceed into his arguments which are two
    islam allow sex with children at an age, i reply to that by showing his mistranslated and sources that actually claim you can't have sex at any age, but when she is physically ready
    he claimed you can marry at any age for no reason, i provided sources that claims the opposite


    I do not care. I am not talking about that I am talking about issue #8 not sex. Pay attention.

    Quote
    and where do you claim i contradict it? at no point
    in Issue#8 this is what is says
    "According to Dr.Muhammad Rafat uthman a member of the Islamic research section in Al-Azhar University
    He state the following
    “لفقهاء أفاضوا في مسألة الزواج فأوضحوا جواز ذلك للصغيرات لكن بشرط أن تستأذن في الزواج وأن تكون بلغت أو تجاوزت سنّ التاسعة”[38]
    Slide (Cool
    Translate into: The Jurisprudence have made the judgment in marriage and gave permission to young ones under one condition that they are to be consulted in marriage and they should reach adulthood or pass nine years of age
    But don’t take my word for it, take the word of one of the most influence grand muftis in the Middle East Dr.Ali Jum’a"


    You never establish the claim of an appeal to authority. You do not know what the fallacy means and used it wrong. On this ground alone your claim is dead. More so you cited two authority figures, one for and one against. Thus all you have done is establish that various experts can not even agree.

    I'm simply playing the same game of authority the masked arab is saying by citing my own sources that disagree with him, what are you talking about? are you not a careful reader?

    "
    It doesn't have to as it is an action that goes beyond tradition and religion. Not my problem you use moral relativism as a defense which undermines Islam completely. Hilarious. Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious."



    Quote
    now again please don't use Quotation function


    Not happening. I like my work to be organized. I am not going to lower my standards for you nor your subpar English.
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #63 - March 02, 2016, 01:50 AM

    reading through your comment with quotation function is kinda irritating, please don't use it again this will  be my finall reply if you keep using it, plus it's getting late now


    Your problem not mine.

    Quote
    my beef is not with Magrib, but with Wajadah, rendering your link a Red herring


    The very verse in question is not a red herring. After all this is the verse about the sun setting in a muddy pool. The people found there. Your comment is pure nonsense. Reaching the setting of the sun is a place not a event. One does not teach the setting sun. More so http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wjd#%2818:86:6%29 shows that found as in location is valid.

    Quote
    nope it's relevant, a word can have more than one meaning, but it can't have more than one use, so Wajadah can't be for location and visual perspective this will be an internal contradiction


    Then mentioning the verse in question which contains the word we are talking about is not a red herring. You contradict yourself. The verse refutes your argument hence you ignore it.

    Quote
    therefore your argument is a nonsequitor


    No since the verse is in context. You have no idea what non-sequitur means.


    Nope as the verse is specific and you are using emotion, You argue is the non-sequitor since you ignore the word itself in the corpus."

    Quote
    no it's nonsequitor because it doesn't logiclly follow for location to accommodate visual perspective in all cases


    In this context since he reached a place location is part of the visual perspective. Besides you are ignoring the greater context in that the person in question is traveling hence moving to different locations.....

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=blg#%2818:86:3%29
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #64 - March 02, 2016, 02:08 AM


    Strawman fallacy, the examples i provided has nothing to do at all with the verse, but rather to answer the challenge he asked for



    He responded to your own examples. You didn't understand the difference between appearance and actuality http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actuality

    Think of an illusion or hallucination. It appears to be real but does not factually exist in reality. Think of a magic trick with sawing a person in half. It appears they are sawed in half but they are not sawed in half in reality. The problem he pointed out, as your own examples show is that there "found" were discoveries that are true. Each example of found is true. So by logical inference the found in the verse in question not just an appearance of but a truth as well. 



  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #65 - March 02, 2016, 12:02 PM

    "He responded to your own examples. You didn't understand the difference between appearance and actuality http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actuality

    Think of an illusion or hallucination. It appears to be real but does not factually exist in reality. Think of a magic trick with sawing a person in half. It appears they are sawed in half but they are not sawed in half in reality. The problem he pointed out, as your own examples show is that there "found" were discoveries that are true. Each example of found is true. So by logical inference the found in the verse in question not just an appearance of but a truth as well.  "

    nope he didn't respond
    and your point about actuality and appearance is a fallacious one, we are not talking about if it actual does happen or not, this is a red herring fallacy
    we are talking about does it look like this or not, his inteligence regarding events are not important at all, please fous on the main issue

    if i saw i saw the sun as it's sitting on a building, then according to your own logic I'm speaking literally, it's irrelevant if i do believe that the sun does sits on a building, what is relevant is my statement
    do i truly believe it sits
    or does the person narrating the story claims that it sits

    i also noticed how your defense of the masked arab went from location and visual perspective being used at the same time, to the idea of actuality, you post me a link to a dictionary on what actuality means, you didn't address the issue further, it's irrelevant if it actually sits or not, what is relevant is that did it appear to him or not?
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #66 - March 02, 2016, 12:25 PM

    Quote
    and your point about actuality and appearance is a fallacious one,


    it is the point made by the masked arab. It is the entire point that you should be discussing. I can't just keep repeating this. I'm telling you that your response to the masked arab is a strawman.  You don't understand what his argument is. I have explained it a few times. You SHOULD be addressing the important distinction between things which seem to have been found, and thing which actually are found.

    Think about it for a second. There is a very good reason why he is addressing this distinction. There is a very good reason why I call it an important distinction. It is an important distinction because it is the dictinction made by Muslims when they try to defend the verse. They bring up the fact that there is a difference between somebody finding something to be the case from their point of view; and that same person actually, in reality finding that state of affairs objectively.

    I have already conceded that's a fair point to make. the problem is that The Masked Arab says the quran itself never makes that distinction. That is why the challenge is to find a verse where it is made.

    He was at no point, talking about 'location spectrum'. I am overlooking the fact that you're not even making any sense on this topic, because it doesn't even matter. You are addressing the wrong distinction. and it's a massive clue that you haven't understood his argument.




  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #67 - March 02, 2016, 12:35 PM

    Not happening. It is how I was taught in English, Literature and other writing related courses. My arguments are easy to read as each is from a standard used in both grade school and higher education. your argument is a copout, nothing more.

    Never said it did, strawman.

    It clearly say its, again your problems with English are clearly. It is used the very hadith you reject as grounding for the exception.



    You are arguing that there is a maturity requirement for marriage then link a source with an exception this requirement.

    Thus an exemption to the maturity law. Handling it is subjective as some children that surfer abuse are not physically harmed but mentally. You mit the mental aspect. Also your standards of maturity are based on the beginning of puberty not the end of it.

    I am not talking about what he said. I am talking about what you said. There is an exception to marriage outside of maturity. I never said sex. You are injecting MA arguments as if I talking about. I wasn't. That does allow a pedophilia to married a 9 year old. This places said 9 year old wife in an environment which the pedophilia husband can abuse her. Like I said such idea are open to abuse.

    I want you to focus on what I said not what MA said.... You know read the comments from the person you are in a dialogue with.

    No it isn't. Read your own blog.

    An appeal to authority is when someone is not an expert. Dr.Muhammad Rafat uthman is an expert. So all you have done is show two experts contradicting each other. Also ironically you are calling the Mufti of Egypt a non-expert. Amusing, So in the end you actually only provided one expert for your view but also introduced an extra against your view. You are free to pick and choose but a rational conclusion is that these experts seem unable to agree. Also your own expert agreed with the exemptions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawki_Allam
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa



    Not in issues #8.

    "Your own source contradicts you."
    such as? where? and what is my argument?

    Issue #8

    So MA was right then per your own reference....  

    Exactly, and I am addressing what you said. There is still an exemption made by experts. You incorrectly thought it was an appeal to an authority which it isn't.

    Yes it did. You made a incorrect claim about an appeal to authority when the source was an expert thus not the reference is not fallacious. You do not know what the fallacy means but use it because you heard someone probably say it to you. Since you claim of a fallacious is wrong your own argument crumbles. More so you cited an expert which shows that there is a major conflict between scholars.

    I presented your view as I specifically identified it by telling you it was issue #8

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


    I do not care. I am not talking about that I am talking about issue #8 not sex. Pay attention.

    You never establish the claim of an appeal to authority. You do not know what the fallacy means and used it wrong. On this ground alone your claim is dead. More so you cited two authority figures, one for and one against. Thus all you have done is establish that various experts can not even agree.

    I'm simply playing the same game of authority the masked arab is saying by citing my own sources that disagree with him, what are you talking about? are you not a careful reader?

    "
    It doesn't have to as it is an action that goes beyond tradition and religion. Not my problem you use moral relativism as a defense which undermines Islam completely. Hilarious. Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious."



    Not happening. I like my work to be organized. I am not going to lower my standards for you nor your subpar English.


    "Never said it did, strawman.

    It clearly say its, again your problems with English are clearly. It is used the very hadith you reject as grounding for the exception."

    yes you did, this is not a strawman, go ready your original this is what you said
    "Quote
    and no he didn't cite any hadith to justify his claim that only children play with dolls


    Yes he did. If you looked at the links, which you didn't, the very hadith he cited is used by my references...."
    in which you refereed to islamQ&A when i actually read it before and you did, you simply copied it from his video without reading it, the website simply address the exception of Aisha playing with dolls since it's forbidden to play with dolls that resemble humans

    "You are arguing that there is a maturity requirement for marriage then link a source with an exception this requirement."
    this is false I'm simply Quoting sources that disagree with the masked arab, and correct his false translations AGAIN here is my main argument

    "scholars have agreed that child marriage is not allowed until there is special benefits for her
    scholars agreed that you can't have sex with a child before they are physically capable to handle it
    the masked arab claimed that a man can have sexual intercourse with a child at any age, i showed he mistranslated several sources to justify this claim, and he claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason at all, i demanded evidence for that
    the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 allow marriage with prepubescent girls, i asked for evidence and i proceeded to show that girls at the age of 8-12 reach puberty within that time menstruation occquire, and this verse is referring to the period before menstruation, and as i explained mensuration happen 3 years after puberty, which leaves me with the question the the masked arab "how do you know this verse is referring to the period before puberty?"
    these are my responses in a nutshell so let me repeat it,
    the masked arab claims you can have sex at any age, i respond with the fact that he mistranslated his sources to justify his claim, and with sources of the same schools of thought that state the wrong opinion
    he claimed you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for it and showed scholars claiming that early age marriage can only be used if there is special benefits for her.
    the masked arab used verse 65:4 to justify his claim that islam allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence and proceed to show that menstruation happen after reaching puberty and proceeded with a question of how does he know this verse is referring to girls before puberty then?


    "Thus an exemption to the maturity law. Handling it is subjective as some children that surfer abuse are not physically harmed but mentally. You mit the mental aspect. Also your standards of maturity are based on the beginning of puberty not the end of it. "
    this is false, my sources state that any time of damage is not allowed, that include mental damage too

    Yes it did. You made a incorrect claim about an appeal to authority when the source was an expert thus not the reference is not fallacious. You do not know what the fallacy means but use it because you heard someone probably say it to you. Since you claim of a fallacious is wrong your own argument crumbles. More so you cited an expert which shows that there is a major conflict between scholars.

    I presented your view as I specifically identified it by telling you it was issue #8

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html"

    this is false, my sources are Direct response to the masked arab OWN appeal to authority, the masked arab cited 3 videos within his video to scholars who appear to be condoning child marriage, the masked arab played the game of authority i simply showed him that i can do the exact same, this is NOT ME EXCLUSIVELY doing authority citation, but rather me playing the same game the masked arab did, please read Issue8 carefully
    but later on you refuted the masked arab by saying there is major conflict between the scholars, if there is major conflict how can he claim that all schools of thought from sunnies unanimously agree that it's permissible to have sex with a child at any age?
    "


    "I do not care. I am not talking about that I am talking about issue #8 not sex. Pay attention."

    and Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT i explicitly accused the masked arab of appeal to authority fallacy you have not read the blog carefully, this is my quote
    "the masked arab calls any muslims who question him as “deluded” this is rather an irrational insult when is clearly faced with skepticism however the purpose of this is him citing 2 online videos of muslim clerics affirming that the young age marriage is allowed in islam
    As I demonstrated above scholars are actually in disagreement regarding the age of sexual intercourse, however this is not my main issue here, the main issue is citing these video is considered an appeal to authority fallacy"
    as you can see, I'm simply stating that it's fallacious to use these 3 videos by the masked arab, so i simply played the same game of my own
    shall we all blame Klingschor when he replied to ramy when Ramy used Authority and Klingschor did the same just to demonstrate that there are scholars who do agree with him?

    "You never establish the claim of an appeal to authority. You do not know what the fallacy means and used it wrong. On this ground alone your claim is dead. More so you cited two authority figures, one for and one against. Thus all you have done is establish that various experts can not even agree.

    I'm simply playing the same game of authority the masked arab is saying by citing my own sources that disagree with him, what are you talking about? are you not a careful reader?

    "
    It doesn't have to as it is an action that goes beyond tradition and religion. Not my problem you use moral relativism as a defense which undermines Islam completely. Hilarious. Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious.""

    AGAIN Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT, be me demonstrating that i can play authority game like the masked arab, please pay attention again, i will site my main argument, do you want to look at my blog? then look at the following
    "the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 allow marriage with prepubescent girls, i asked for evidence and i proceed to show that girls at the age of 8-12 reach puberty within that time menstruation occurred, and this verse is referring to the period before menstruation, and as i explained mensuration happen 3 years after puberty, which leaves me with the question the the masked arab "how do you know this verse is referring to the period before puberty?"
    these are my responses in a nutshell so let me repeat it,
    the masked arab claims you can have sex at any age, i respond with the fact that he mistranslated his sources to justify his claim, and with sources of the same schools of thought that state the wrong opinion
    he claimed you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for it and showed sholars claiming that early age marriage can only be used if there is special benefits for her.
    the masked arab used verse 65:4 to justify his claim that islam allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence and proceed to show that instrumentation happen after reaching puberty and proceeded with a question of how does he know this verse is referring to girls before puberty then?"

    "Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious"
    this is false this shows you have not read my blog, so go back to the intruduction and read my citation to academic sexologist who explictly say that anyone who simply follow a tradtion and religion as justification for child marrige or even interourse is not defined as pedophile
    this is a clear example that you have not read my blog let alone you have not paied attention to it, anyone who did can clearly see it in the start of the blog, this shows your lack of observation, therefore your claims falls apart
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #68 - March 02, 2016, 12:46 PM

    it is the point made by the masked arab. It is the entire point that you should be discussing. I can't just keep repeating this. I'm telling you that your response to the masked arab is a strawman.  You don't understand what his argument is. I have explained it a few times. You SHOULD be addressing the important distinction between things which seem to have been found, and thing which actually are found.

    Think about it for a second. There is a very good reason why he is addressing this distinction. There is a very good reason why I call it an important distinction. It is an important distinction because it is the dictinction made by Muslims when they try to defend the verse. They bring up the fact that there is a difference between somebody finding something to be the case from their point of view; and that same person actually, in reality finding that state of affairs objectively.

    I have already conceded that's a fair point to make. the problem is that The Masked Arab says the quran itself never makes that distinction. That is why the challenge is to find a verse where it is made.

    He was at no point, talking about 'location spectrum'. I am overlooking the fact that you're not even making any sense on this topic, because it doesn't even matter. You are addressing the wrong distinction. and it's a massive clue that you haven't understood his argument.




    no it's not the masked arab point, what he is stating is that "does the Quran claim that it appeared to him, or does the Quran speak literal?"  he is comparing whither or not it;s visual or literal, you are now strawmanning your own youtube idol to make an ad hoc fallacy
    " I'm telling you that your response to the masked arab is a strawman.  You don't understand what his argument is. I have explained it a few times. You SHOULD be addressing the important distinction between things which seem to have been found, and thing which actually are found."
    no it's not a strawman, the masked arab explicitly claimed in his challenge to show a single use of the word without location spectrum, i gave 7 examples of the use without location

    i see now how you completely changed your response from it being both visual and location at the same time, to actuality, when actuality is not part of the argument at all, no one is claiming it it actually sits or not, we are claiming it it;s from Dul-Qaranian visual perspective or does the quran claim literal interpenetration?

    "I have already conceded that's a fair point to make. the problem is that The Masked Arab says the quran itself never makes that distinction. That is why the challenge is to find a verse where it is made."
    this is false, the challenge is to find a use for the word Wajadah without location use or from visual perspective, you are now making a knee jerk reaction and trying so hard to defend him with every argument you cling on, his points are clear, even when i was chatting with Klingschor yesterday he fairly understood his challenge and my answer to it

    "He was at no point, talking about 'location spectrum'. I am overlooking the fact that you're not even making any sense on this topic, because it doesn't even matter. You are addressing the wrong distinction. and it's a massive clue that you haven't understood his argument."

    so far you have nor logically presented his challenge at all, at no point does he ask for a verse that make a disgusting between wajadah in visual and location he asked in his challenge for a single verse where there is visual or perspective use of the word, and not location
    since muslims claim that this verse is speaking from Dul-Qaranian point of view I.E visual perspective therefore he responded by saying "show me an example of perspective use of it in the Quran" and i provided more than one

    you are trying desperatly to defend his argument to the point that you even went so far to misrepresent it
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #69 - March 02, 2016, 12:57 PM

    Your problem not mine.

    The very verse in question is not a red herring. After all this is the verse about the sun setting in a muddy pool. The people found there. Your comment is pure nonsense. Reaching the setting of the sun is a place not a event. One does not teach the setting sun. More so http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wjd#%2818:86:6%29 shows that found as in location is valid.

    Then mentioning the verse in question which contains the word we are talking about is not a red herring. You contradict yourself. The verse refutes your argument hence you ignore it.

    No since the verse is in context. You have no idea what non-sequitur means.


    Nope as the verse is specific and you are using emotion, You argue is the non-sequitor since you ignore the word itself in the corpus."

    In this context since he reached a place location is part of the visual perspective. Besides you are ignoring the greater context in that the person in question is traveling hence moving to different locations.....

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=blg#%2818:86:3%29



    Red herring is your argument NOT THE VERSE, i never said that the verse in Question is a red herring, you just committed a strawman fallacy
    as for location you are referring to the other verses where he reached the place where the sun rises
    "Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had not made against it any shield."
    18:90
    this is referring to the place where the sun rise, later on on verse 93 it will referee to Gog and Magog

    "Your comment is pure nonsense. Reaching the setting of the sun is a place not a event. One does not teach the setting sun. "
    Strawman fallacy, my argument ONES AGAIN is not the location or Magrib, but rather the word Wajadah again you are strawmaning my main issue here

    "
    Then mentioning the verse in question which contains the word we are talking about is not a red herring. You contradict yourself. The verse refutes your argument hence you ignore it. "

    again the Red herring is your use of the word Magrib when this word has nothing to do with my argument, the red herring is NOT and i repeat for the last time NOT a reference to the verse, BUT YOUR USE of the word Magrib as it has nothing to do with Wajadah

    "No since the verse is in context. You have no idea what non-sequitur means.


    Nope as the verse is specific and you are using emotion, You argue is the non-sequitor since you ignore the word itself in the corpus."
    "

    nonsequitror means it doesn't logically follow your conclusion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

    you claimed that in order for the use of visual perspective location is always accommodated with it here i will Quote myself
    "does your location matter? not every comment and an observation require a location
    therefore your argument is a nonsequitor"
    which means you claimed that since it's visual use location always logically accommodate visual perspective use

    i said this is a nonsequitur fallacy, it doesn't logically follows that location always accommodated the use of visual perspective, that is why your response falls apart, that is why your argument is fallacious at best
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #70 - March 02, 2016, 01:00 PM

    Quote
    the masked arab explicitly claimed in his challenge to show a single use of the word without location spectrum,


    no he didn't. What the hell is a 'location spectrum' anyway? I have changed nothing. every one of my responses has been the same, only ever addressing this bizarre distinction you are making between visual and 'location spectrum', to tell you that you have got it wrong.

    you just don't get it. you can't be helped. Good luck with more excellent 'refutations' that completely miss every point
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #71 - March 02, 2016, 01:23 PM

    "no he didn't. What the hell is a 'location spectrum' anyway? I have changed nothing. every one of my responses has been the same, only ever addressing this bizarre distinction you are making between visual and 'location spectrum', to tell you that you have got it wrong.

    you just don't get it. you can't be helped. Good luck with more excellent 'refutations' that completely miss every point"

    yes he did that is his main point
    muslims claim that the verse is of visual and not litral persepective, the masked arab claims that the verse is used in location spectrum therefore it's litral, then he proceed to demand a challange where there is a single use of the word wajadah without location (i.e how muslims interpert it) i showed him 7 examples

    location spectrum means that the word is used purely for location not visual presentation
    no you changed your responses, you used to claim that visual is always accommodated with location
    Now you suddenly change it into visual and actuality, you swift your response when you found how how fallacious your old one is, and you changed it to actuality comment, when in reality even the masked arab is not claiming wither or not the verse is making an actuality claim, he is claiming the verse is literal because wajadah is used in location use, muslims claims that it's figurative because wajadah here is used in visual perspective
    therefore the masked arab challenges the muslims to show a single example from the quran of the use of the word wajadh in location perspective
    and so i came in and gave 7 examples where location is not used but rather visual interpretation (i found him this) (we found them this)
    so far you have claimed that i miss his point yet you haven't even presented his point accurately, as he clearly challenges muslims to show a single use of the word with visual or perspective use

    good luck? why do i need it?
    miss the point? where?
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #72 - March 02, 2016, 04:45 PM

    Seriously.... dude.

    It's just... I read your blog and this stuff seems to be... trying very hard to miss the point. Like, very very hard.

    Calling Mo not a pedophile because he was a man of his time, meanwhile using modern women's standards of playing with dolls and comparing it to 7th century traditions. In 7th century was it childish to play with dolls? Then aisha was very likely to be a child.

    A lot of the explanations are very embarassing, and a lot of your own sources even gave claim that there really was no age limit. Just be "physically ready". 9 years old was not ready.

    Quote
    “Narrated Abu Huraira:
    The Prophet () said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Messenger ()! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission).”


    Silence isn't giving permission. Period. This, if anything, will backfire on you very hard.

    Quote
    A woman without a husband has more right to her person than her guardian and a virgin’s permission must be asked, her permission being her silence.


    Man, what a great religion.

    Why do you think that posting your blog would actually ruin maskedarab? If anything, you gave him even more credibility....

    Dear god.
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #73 - March 02, 2016, 05:12 PM

    "Seriously.... dude.

    It's just... I read your blog and this stuff seems to be... trying very hard to miss the point. Like, very very hard.

    Calling Mo not a pedophile because he was a man of his time, meanwhile using modern women's standards of playing with dolls and comparing it to 7th century traditions. In 7th century was it childish to play with dolls? Then aisha was very likely to be a child.

    A lot of the explanations are very embarassing, and a lot of your own sources even gave claim that there really was no age limit. Just be "physically ready". 9 years old was not ready.

    Quote
    “Narrated Abu Huraira:
    The Prophet () said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Messenger ()! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission).”


    Silence isn't giving permission. Period. This, if anything, will backfire on you very hard.

    Quote
    A woman without a husband has more right to her person than her guardian and a virgin’s permission must be asked, her permission being her silence.


    Man, what a great religion.

    Why do you think that posting your blog would actually ruin maskedarab? If anything, you gave him even more credibility....

    Dear god."

    you need to calm down and stop acing like a child

    "It's just... I read your blog and this stuff seems to be... trying very hard to miss the point. Like, very very hard. "

    such as?

    "Calling Mo not a pedophile because he was a man of his time, meanwhile using modern women's standards of playing with dolls and comparing it to 7th century traditions. In 7th century was it childish to play with dolls? Then aisha was very likely to be a child."
    no calling him not a pedophile because that is how academics interpret it NOT because he was a man of his time, again strawman
    no it was not childish to play with dolls, again your own source doesn't state anywhere that playing with dolls is exclusively for children in islam  it's simply addressing the issue of aisha playing with doll while it's forbidden to have human figure as dolls

    "A lot of the explanations are very embarrassing, and a lot of your own sources even gave claim that there really was no age limit. Just be "physically ready". 9 years old was not ready.

    Quote
    “Narrated Abu Huraira:
    The Prophet () said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Messenger ()! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission).”


    Silence isn't giving permission. Period. This, if anything, will backfire on you very hard."

    i never said silence is the ultimate consent or permission, please again don't strawman me, i explicitly said that scholars agree that a father should wait for his girl to grow up in marriage so she can give her permission so she won't fall in a marriage she dislike, please for the love of god pay attention

    "Why do you think that posting your blog would actually ruin maskedarab? If anything, you gave him even more credibility...."

    not ruin but hopefully make him improve himself if he was honest enough
    how does it give him more credibility? dear god it's criticism not flattery
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #74 - March 02, 2016, 06:04 PM


    nope he didn't respond


    Yes he did. You just do not understand it.

    Quote
    and your point about actuality and appearance is a fallacious one, we are not talking about if it actual does happen or not, this is a red herring fallacy
    we are talking about does it look like this or not, his inteligence regarding events are not important at all, please fous on the main issue


    Claiming a fallacy, you haven't shown it was is a copout for your own inability to understand arguments presented to you. Your missed the point that is all.

    Quote
    if i saw i saw the sun as it's sitting on a building, then according to your own logic I'm speaking literally, it's irrelevant if i do believe that the sun does sits on a building, what is relevant is my statement
    do i truly believe it sits
    or does the person narrating the story claims that it sits


    No in the Quran every instead of he found X, X was not just an appearance but a reality as well. Again you didn't understand the argument. Your example is irrelevent as we are talking about the Quran not you on a Friday afternoon or w/e.

    Quote
    i also noticed how your defense of the masked arab went from location and visual perspective being used at the same time, to the idea of actuality, you post me a link to a dictionary on what actuality means, you didn't address the issue further, it's irrelevant if it actually sits or not, what is relevant is that did it appear to him or not?


    Location was my own, it had nothing to do with MA. Actuality of appearance in the Quran shows that what was found was also true. Again you do not understand actuality at all. I provided the reference so you could learn yourself. Now we have to tell you what it means. It is relevant as where the appearance of was true or not. 
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #75 - March 02, 2016, 06:14 PM

    "Quote from: AhmedZaid9119 on Today at 12:02 PM

    nope he didn't respond


    Yes he did. You just do not understand it.

    Quote
    and your point about actuality and appearance is a fallacious one, we are not talking about if it actual does happen or not, this is a red herring fallacy
    we are talking about does it look like this or not, his inteligence regarding events are not important at all, please fous on the main issue


    Claiming a fallacy, you haven't shown it was is a copout for your own inability to understand arguments presented to you. Your missed the point that is all.

    Quote
    if i saw i saw the sun as it's sitting on a building, then according to your own logic I'm speaking literally, it's irrelevant if i do believe that the sun does sits on a building, what is relevant is my statement
    do i truly believe it sits
    or does the person narrating the story claims that it sits


    No in the Quran every instead of he found X, X was not just an appearance but a reality as well. Again you didn't understand the argument. Your example is irrelevent as we are talking about the Quran not you on a Friday afternoon or w/e.

    Quote
    i also noticed how your defense of the masked arab went from location and visual perspective being used at the same time, to the idea of actuality, you post me a link to a dictionary on what actuality means, you didn't address the issue further, it's irrelevant if it actually sits or not, what is relevant is that did it appear to him or not?


    Location was my own, it had nothing to do with MA. Actuality of appearance in the Quran shows that what was found was also true. Again you do not understand actuality at all. I provided the reference so you could learn yourself. Now we have to tell you what it means. It is relevant as where the appearance of was true or not"

    ok this is probably going to be my final reply

    "
    Yes he did. You just do not understand it."

    please show me where did he replied directly to me, you said he replied to me, i said he didn't so where did he directly reply to me?

    "Claiming a fallacy, you haven't shown it was is a copout for your own inability to understand arguments presented to you. Your missed the point that is all."

    it's a red herring fallacy because actuality has nothing to do with TMA argument, so you are also misrepresenting him aswell, he is saying "show me one verse in the Quran where wajadah is used from visual perspective of someone else" at no point does he even remotely used the word actuality or anything similar to it, you are just trying disparately to defend him

    "No in the Quran every instead of he found X, X was not just an appearance but a reality as well. Again you didn't understand the argument. Your example is irrelevent as we are talking about the Quran not you on a Friday afternoon or w/e."
    "in the Quran every instead of he found x,x was not just an appearance but a reality aswell" which is again red herring fallacy it's irrelevant if the sun actually sits in a murky water, what is relevant is that DOES the Quran claim literal meaning or does it speak from Dul-Qaranian perspective?


    "Location was my own, it had nothing to do with MA. Actuality of appearance in the Quran shows that what was found was also true. Again you do not understand actuality at all. I provided the reference so you could learn yourself. Now we have to tell you what it means. It is relevant as where the appearance of was true or not""

    again actuality is not the masked arab argument so stop misrepresenting it

    I'm sorry I'm done here
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #76 - March 02, 2016, 07:11 PM

    This is a very dysfunctional relationship in which two people are speaking two different languages.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #77 - March 02, 2016, 07:15 PM

    "Never said it did, strawman.

    It clearly say its, again your problems with English are clearly. It is used the very hadith you reject as grounding for the exception."

    yes you did, this is not a strawman, go ready your original this is what you said
    "Quote
    and no he didn't cite any hadith to justify his claim that only children play with dolls

    Yes he did. If you looked at the links, which you didn't, the very hadith he cited is used by my references...."
    in which you refereed to islamQ&A when i actually read it before and you did, you simply copied it from his video without reading it, the website simply address the exception of Aisha playing with dolls since it's forbidden to play with dolls that resemble humans


    There is a rule about idolatry that children as except from based on the hadith as Aisha played with dolls. You are changing this to there is a hadith allowing children to pay with dolls itself. Thus it is a strawman since you ignore the ruling part completely and lumped everything into the hadith. My claim stands as does your fallacious response.

    https://islamqa.info/en/9473
    http://askaquestionto.us/question-answer/fiqh/are-animal-toys-and-dolls-forbidden-in-islam
    http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/832

    Quote
    this is false I'm simply Quoting sources that disagree with the masked arab, and correct his false translations AGAIN here is my main argument


    Doesn't matter. It undermines a part of your argument since it opens the door to child abuse by allowing children to marry. Like I said in your rush to refute MA you damaged your own claims.

    Quote
    scholars agreed that you can't have sex with a child before they are physically capable to handle it


    Which is subjective as "handle it" contains no biology, mental nor physical parameters based on puberty.

    Quote
    the masked arab claimed that a man can have sexual intercourse with a child at any age, i showed he mistranslated several sources to justify this claim, and he claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason at all, i demanded evidence for that


    Yes.... I never argued that he was right did I? You keep bring up his points while ignoring mine while also projecting his views as if I support them without me even saying anything about it.

    the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 allow marriage with prepubescent girls, i asked for evidence and i proceeded to show that girls at the age of 8-12 reach puberty within that time menstruation occquire, and this verse is referring to the period before menstruation, and as i explained mensuration happen 3 years after puberty, which leaves me with the question the the masked arab "how do you know this verse is referring to the period before puberty?" [/quote]

    Reached puberty does not mean completed thus intercourse during puberty rather than after it had completed. 8-12 is the range when puberty begins, not ends. Your own sources show this but now you ignore these sources. Menstruation starts after breast budding not puberty.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/reach

    Quote
    the masked arab claims you can have sex at any age, i respond with the fact that he mistranslated his sources to justify his claim, and with sources of the same schools of thought that state the wrong opinion
    he claimed you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for it and showed scholars claiming that early age marriage can only be used if there is special benefits for her.
    the masked arab used verse 65:4 to justify his claim that islam allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence and proceed to show that menstruation happen after reaching puberty and proceeded with a question of how does he know this verse is referring to girls before puberty then?


    Irrelevant as I never brought these points up at all.  am attacking your arguments not defending MA's arguments.

    Quote
    this is false, my sources state that any time of damage is not allowed, that include mental damage too


    No it isn't. It is still an exemption even if it has restriction. If this restrictions are met then the exemption to maturity is allowed.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/exemption


    Quote
    this is false, my sources are Direct response to the masked arab OWN appeal to authority, the masked arab cited 3 videos within his video to scholars who appear to be condoning child marriage, the masked arab played the game of authority i simply showed him that i can do the exact same, this is NOT ME EXCLUSIVELY doing authority citation, but rather me playing the same game the masked arab did, please read Issue8 carefully


    An appeal to authority is when someone isn't an expert. You did nothing to show MA source is not an expert. You do not understand what the fallacy is nor did you support your claim. Your argument is nonsense.

    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

        Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
        Person A makes claim C about subject S.
        Therefore, C is true.

    Quote
    but later on you refuted the masked arab by saying there is major conflict between the scholars, if there is major conflict how can he claim that all schools of thought from sunnies unanimously agree that it's permissible to have sex with a child at any age?


    No. I showed that experts disagree but are still experts. I was attacking your claim of a fallacy not MA's "all Sunni think X" You still haven't demonstrated the fallacy at all.

    Quote
    and Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT i explicitly accused the masked arab of appeal to authority fallacy you have not read the blog carefully, this is my quote
    "the masked arab calls any muslims who question him as “deluded” this is rather an irrational insult when is clearly faced with skepticism however the purpose of this is him citing 2 online videos of muslim clerics affirming that the young age marriage is allowed in islam


    It is your argument as you have a counter-argument in issue #8. An argument you never supported at all. You still have no idea what the fallacy means. You never demonstrated that these people were not authorities, were not experts, etc.

    Quote
    As I demonstrated above scholars are actually in disagreement regarding the age of sexual intercourse, however this is not my main issue here, the main issue is citing these video is considered an appeal to authority fallacy"
    as you can see, I'm simply stating that it's fallacious to use these 3 videos by the masked arab, so i simply played the same game of my own
    shall we all blame Klingschor when he replied to ramy when Ramy used Authority and Klingschor did the same just to demonstrate that there are scholars who do agree with him?


    Which is a disagreement not a fallacy. You still have no idea what the fallacy means even after linking you a page telling you what it means. The rest of your point is useless based on your inability or unwillingness to understand what the fallacy means.

    Klingschor and Ramy have nothing to do with this at all.

    Quote
    I'm simply playing the same game of authority the masked arab is saying by citing my own sources that disagree with him, what are you talking about? are you not a careful reader?


    Never said you couldn't do that. Just that your point that he used a fallacy is false. All you have demonstrated is disagreement but not your many point about a fallacy.

    Quote
    AGAIN Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT, be me demonstrating that i can play authority game like the masked arab, please pay attention again, i will site my main argument, do you want to look at my blog? then look at the following


    Yes it is since it has a counter-argument in it.... Did you not provide references? Do you not make an argument against MA in #8?

    "Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious"
    this is false this shows you have not read my blog, so go back to the intruduction and read my citation to academic sexologist who explictly say that anyone who simply follow a tradtion and religion as justification for child marrige or even interourse is not defined as pedophile [/quote]

    Wrong. You source says that traditions which seem similar to pedophilia but the people may not have the mental illness of pedophilia. That is not an exemption to pedophilia but that people are assuming mental illness based on tradition which is a false diagnosis. Read your own sources. An exemption is that people X are pedophiles but are allowed to be and commit acts due to their religion.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/exemption
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misdiagnosis

    Quote
    this is a clear example that you have not read my blog let alone you have not paied attention to it, anyone who did can clearly see it in the start of the blog, this shows your lack of observation, therefore your claims falls apart


    No I read it.  You make comprehension mistakes as pointed out above.
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #78 - March 02, 2016, 07:16 PM

    This is a very dysfunctional relationship in which two people are speaking two different languages.


    Same language but one of has major comprehension issues with English words such as exemption and misdiagnosis.
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #79 - March 02, 2016, 07:41 PM

    no it's not the masked arab point, what he is stating is that "does the Quran claim that it appeared to him, or does the Quran speak literal?"  he is comparing whither or not it;s visual or literal, you are now strawmanning your own youtube idol to make an ad hoc fallacy


    My idol? Considering I had to have the videos linked provided to me shows I have not even familiar with MA. I am not defending his points. I am attacking your arguments and inability to understand that each case of found was not just appearance but a reality. Your comment is pure nonsense. Heck I never even watched the sun video just the

    Quote
    " I'm telling you that your response to the masked arab is a strawman.  You don't understand what his argument is. I have explained it a few times. You SHOULD be addressing the important distinction between things which seem to have been found, and thing which actually are found."


    I have no response to MA. I have a response to you based on what Dr. S posted, nothing more. I already addressed it. If he found 3 orphans was this an appearance of 3 orphan but they were not 3 orphans? Or were they factually orphans? Appearance of become actuality in every single example.... You are obvious to this since you do not know what actuality means


    Quote
    no it's not a strawman, the masked arab explicitly claimed in his challenge to show a single use of the word without location spectrum, i gave 7 examples of the use without location


    Yet in each case there is a location since there are people involved. People exist within space thus have a location.....everyone has a location. Do you deny this? That is my point not MA's. Ma's argument is about actuality and appearance. Watch it again

    Quote
    i see now how you completely changed your response from it being both visual and location at the same time, to actuality, when actuality is not part of the argument at all, no one is claiming it it actually sits or not, we are claiming it it;s from Dul-Qaranian visual perspective or does the quran claim literal interpenetration?


    No you just do not understand that everyone has a location as part of their existences in the universe. To observe anything you need a location. To observe something using only vision you need to be in a location from which you can view something else. Actuality is part of MA's argument, location is built into by the definition of observation. Can you observe a street in NYC without the aid of technology, ie visually, without being there? You are oblivious to the basic idea of visual observations. Hence why he constantly repeats examples of things observed that were an actuality. An appearance of mountain becomes the mountain are actually real.

    "I have already conceded that's a fair point to make. the problem is that The Masked Arab says the quran itself never makes that distinction. That is why the challenge is to find a verse where it is made."

    Quote
    this is false, the challenge is to find a use for the word Wajadah without location use or from visual perspective, you are now making a knee jerk reaction and trying so hard to defend him with every argument you cling on, his points are clear, even when i was chatting with Klingschor yesterday he fairly understood his challenge and my answer to it


    To observe something you need to be at it's location. You have yet to demonstrate a use without a location being involved as the word is a personal reference frame. Every person has a location.

    Your chat with Klingschor is irrelevant, it is hearsay nothing more.

    Quote
    I am overlooking the fact that you're not even making any sense on this topic, because it doesn't even matter. You are addressing the wrong distinction. and it's a massive clue that you haven't understood his argument."


    Since you deny your own examples are about people which by our very existences have a location you have no point to make. No I understood his argument fine; appearance/actuality.

    Quote
    so far you have nor logically presented his challenge at all, at no point does he ask for a verse that make a disgusting between wajadah in visual and location he asked in his challenge for a single verse where there is visual or perspective use of the word, and not location


    That was my challenge to you, not his to you. You still do not understand his argument.

    Quote
    ince muslims claim that this verse is speaking from Dul-Qaranian point of view I.E visual perspective therefore he responded by saying "show me an example of perspective use of it in the Quran" and i provided more than one


    No you didn't. All your examples failed since you do not understand actuality. Did Mo find orphans or were they not orphans but looked like it? Appearance can be true/false, actuality is only true

    Quote
    you are trying desperatly to defend his argument to the point that you even went so far to misrepresent it


    No it is my argument based on the tiny bit of information from you and sloth. Again I just started watching that video.
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #80 - March 02, 2016, 08:04 PM



    and your point about actuality and appearance is a fallacious one, we are not talking about if it actual does happen or not, this is a red herring fallacy


    Yes we are. You provided examples of appearance and actuality. You just called your own points a red herring....

    Quote
    we are talking about does it look like this or not, his inteligence regarding events are not important at all, please fous on the main issue


    What do you think the comments about appearance and actuality are about.....

    [quopteif i saw i saw the sun as it's sitting on a building, then according to your own logic I'm speaking literally, it's irrelevant if i do believe that the sun does sits on a building, what is relevant is my statement
    do i truly believe it sits
    or does the person narrating the story claims that it sits [/quote]

    If you say that then you statement is in error simple as that. It poor English.

    The story never says appearance only, your own examples show appearance and actuality


    Quote
    i also noticed how your defense of the masked arab went from location and visual perspective being used at the same time, to the idea of actuality, you post me a link to a dictionary on what actuality means, you didn't address the issue further, it's irrelevant if it actually sits or not, what is relevant is that did it appear to him or not?


    It was my defense based on using my own sources. Again I just finished the video in question. Yes you notice that, good now you have a basic idea of physics and what it means to exist in a physical word. Location is part of an observation....

    No the question of appearance only versus appearance and actuality is in fact relevant. Remember actuality means true. So was the appearance true or not as a fact of reality.


    Location was my own, it had nothing to do with MA. Actuality of appearance in the Quran shows that what was found was also true. Again you do not understand actuality at all. I provided the reference so you could learn yourself. Now we have to tell you what it means. It is relevant as where the appearance of was true or not"

    Quote
    please show me where did he replied directly to me, you said he replied to me, i said he didn't so where did he directly reply to me?


    Page 2 and 3. Read it

    Quote
    it's a red herring fallacy because actuality has nothing to do with TMA argument, so you are also misrepresenting him aswell, he is saying "show me one verse in the Quran where wajadah is used from visual perspective of someone else" at no point does he even remotely used the word actuality or anything similar to it, you are just trying disparately to defend him


    Yes it does since actuality is just simple a truth, actually exists. You do not know what actuality means and how words can be synonymous with each other. This is because your Enlgish is very poor. Look at the link, scroll down to the thesaurus, read it. Read what is below that.......  Again you have no idea what the word means but refuse to learn what is means. 

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/actuality

    Quote
    which is again red herring fallacy it's irrelevant if the sun actually sits in a murky water, what is relevant is that DOES the Quran claim literal meaning or does it speak from Dul-Qaranian perspective?


    Nope since we are talking about a specific word in which uses of it were actualities, true, not just appearances of but false.

    Quote
    again actuality is not the masked arab argument so stop misrepresenting it


    Yes he is. you still have no idea what the word means and how to use it.

    Quote
    I'm sorry I'm done here


    Enroll in English classes
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #81 - March 02, 2016, 08:17 PM

    "Quote from: AhmedZaid9119 on Today at 12:35 PM
    "Never said it did, strawman.

    It clearly say its, again your problems with English are clearly. It is used the very hadith you reject as grounding for the exception."

    yes you did, this is not a strawman, go ready your original this is what you said
    "Quote
    and no he didn't cite any hadith to justify his claim that only children play with dolls

    Yes he did. If you looked at the links, which you didn't, the very hadith he cited is used by my references...."
    in which you refereed to islamQ&A when i actually read it before and you did, you simply copied it from his video without reading it, the website simply address the exception of Aisha playing with dolls since it's forbidden to play with dolls that resemble humans


    There is a rule about idolatry that children as except from based on the hadith as Aisha played with dolls. You are changing this to there is a hadith allowing children to pay with dolls itself. Thus it is a strawman since you ignore the ruling part completely and lumped everything into the hadith. My claim stands as does your fallacious response.

    https://islamqa.info/en/9473
    http://askaquestionto.us/question-answer/fiqh/are-animal-toys-and-dolls-forbidden-in-islam
    http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/832

    Quote
    this is false I'm simply Quoting sources that disagree with the masked arab, and correct his false translations AGAIN here is my main argument


    Doesn't matter. It undermines a part of your argument since it opens the door to child abuse by allowing children to marry. Like I said in your rush to refute MA you damaged your own claims.

    Quote
    scholars agreed that you can't have sex with a child before they are physically capable to handle it


    Which is subjective as "handle it" contains no biology, mental nor physical parameters based on puberty.

    Quote
    the masked arab claimed that a man can have sexual intercourse with a child at any age, i showed he mistranslated several sources to justify this claim, and he claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason at all, i demanded evidence for that


    Yes.... I never argued that he was right did I? You keep bring up his points while ignoring mine while also projecting his views as if I support them without me even saying anything about it.

    the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 allow marriage with prepubescent girls, i asked for evidence and i proceeded to show that girls at the age of 8-12 reach puberty within that time menstruation occquire, and this verse is referring to the period before menstruation, and as i explained mensuration happen 3 years after puberty, which leaves me with the question the the masked arab "how do you know this verse is referring to the period before puberty?" [/quote]

    Reached puberty does not mean completed thus intercourse during puberty rather than after it had completed. 8-12 is the range when puberty begins, not ends. Your own sources show this but now you ignore these sources. Menstruation starts after breast budding not puberty.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/reach

    Quote
    the masked arab claims you can have sex at any age, i respond with the fact that he mistranslated his sources to justify his claim, and with sources of the same schools of thought that state the wrong opinion
    he claimed you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for it and showed scholars claiming that early age marriage can only be used if there is special benefits for her.
    the masked arab used verse 65:4 to justify his claim that islam allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence and proceed to show that menstruation happen after reaching puberty and proceeded with a question of how does he know this verse is referring to girls before puberty then?


    Irrelevant as I never brought these points up at all.  am attacking your arguments not defending MA's arguments.

    Quote
    this is false, my sources state that any time of damage is not allowed, that include mental damage too


    No it isn't. It is still an exemption even if it has restriction. If this restrictions are met then the exemption to maturity is allowed.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/exemption


    Quote
    this is false, my sources are Direct response to the masked arab OWN appeal to authority, the masked arab cited 3 videos within his video to scholars who appear to be condoning child marriage, the masked arab played the game of authority i simply showed him that i can do the exact same, this is NOT ME EXCLUSIVELY doing authority citation, but rather me playing the same game the masked arab did, please read Issue8 carefully


    An appeal to authority is when someone isn't an expert. You did nothing to show MA source is not an expert. You do not understand what the fallacy is nor did you support your claim. Your argument is nonsense.

    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

        Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
        Person A makes claim C about subject S.
        Therefore, C is true.

    Quote
    but later on you refuted the masked arab by saying there is major conflict between the scholars, if there is major conflict how can he claim that all schools of thought from sunnies unanimously agree that it's permissible to have sex with a child at any age?


    No. I showed that experts disagree but are still experts. I was attacking your claim of a fallacy not MA's "all Sunni think X" You still haven't demonstrated the fallacy at all.

    Quote
    and Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT i explicitly accused the masked arab of appeal to authority fallacy you have not read the blog carefully, this is my quote
    "the masked arab calls any muslims who question him as “deluded” this is rather an irrational insult when is clearly faced with skepticism however the purpose of this is him citing 2 online videos of muslim clerics affirming that the young age marriage is allowed in islam


    It is your argument as you have a counter-argument in issue #8. An argument you never supported at all. You still have no idea what the fallacy means. You never demonstrated that these people were not authorities, were not experts, etc.

    Quote
    As I demonstrated above scholars are actually in disagreement regarding the age of sexual intercourse, however this is not my main issue here, the main issue is citing these video is considered an appeal to authority fallacy"
    as you can see, I'm simply stating that it's fallacious to use these 3 videos by the masked arab, so i simply played the same game of my own
    shall we all blame Klingschor when he replied to ramy when Ramy used Authority and Klingschor did the same just to demonstrate that there are scholars who do agree with him?


    Which is a disagreement not a fallacy. You still have no idea what the fallacy means even after linking you a page telling you what it means. The rest of your point is useless based on your inability or unwillingness to understand what the fallacy means.

    Klingschor and Ramy have nothing to do with this at all.

    Quote
    I'm simply playing the same game of authority the masked arab is saying by citing my own sources that disagree with him, what are you talking about? are you not a careful reader?


    Never said you couldn't do that. Just that your point that he used a fallacy is false. All you have demonstrated is disagreement but not your many point about a fallacy.

    Quote
    AGAIN Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT, be me demonstrating that i can play authority game like the masked arab, please pay attention again, i will site my main argument, do you want to look at my blog? then look at the following


    Yes it is since it has a counter-argument in it.... Did you not provide references? Do you not make an argument against MA in #8?

    "Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious"
    this is false this shows you have not read my blog, so go back to the intruduction and read my citation to academic sexologist who explictly say that anyone who simply follow a tradtion and religion as justification for child marrige or even interourse is not defined as pedophile [/quote]

    Wrong. You source says that traditions which seem similar to pedophilia but the people may not have the mental illness of pedophilia. That is not an exemption to pedophilia but that people are assuming mental illness based on tradition which is a false diagnosis. Read your own sources. An exemption is that people X are pedophiles but are allowed to be and commit acts due to their religion.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/exemption
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misdiagnosis

    Quote
    this is a clear example that you have not read my blog let alone you have not paied attention to it, anyone who did can clearly see it in the start of the blog, this shows your lack of observation, therefore your claims falls apart


    No I read it.  You make comprehension mistakes as pointed out above."

    Ok this is going to be my real final reply to you as this is going no where, you are free to have a Skype chat with me if you wish to continue this

    "
    There is a rule about idolatry that children as except from based on the hadith as Aisha played with dolls. You are changing this to there is a hadith allowing children to pay with dolls itself. Thus it is a strawman since you ignore the ruling part completely and lumped everything into the hadith. My claim stands as does your fallacious response."

    again Red herring fallacy, this has nothing to do with my initial response, again the link discuss the idea of dolls having human figures and having dolls with human figures is considered forbidden, the link address the issue of Aisha having doll,s your original post claim that this link is an evidence that in islam having dolls means you are a child
    when no where does the website make such claim, this is a red herring fallacy


    "Doesn't matter. It undermines a part of your argument since it opens the door to child abuse by allowing children to marry. Like I said in your rush to refute MA you damaged your own claims."

    again you cited no logical explanation no evidence at all, Issue8 is not an argument and not me responding to the masked arab, in this issue8 i show that i can cited authority just as much as the masked arab can, i have given you my main argument and i will repeat it for the last time
    The masked arab claimed that Islam allow sex at any age, i showed that he mistranslated the sources and showed the complete opposite by showing that if any type of damage happen then it's not allowed
    the masked arab claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for such statement and provided sources that claim child marriage is only applicable when there is special benefits
    the masked arab claimed that 65:4 of the Quran allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence for such claim and showed that girls who have not yet menstruated can still hit puberty, which lead me to ask him how does he know this verse is referring to the period before puberty

    That above is my main argument
    Issue8 is not my main argument, never was

    "Which is subjective as "handle it" contains no biology, mental nor physical parameters based on puberty."
    i specifically mentioned damage as in general, mental damage is still considered also physical damage
    so let me Quote myself
    "and if she can’t endure penetration either she was extremely young and at the age of breastfeeding or like it such as three years of age or four or close to it then it’s Not allowed to have any form of sexual pleasure either by penetration or similar to it because she is not physically able to, but for those who simply use sexual pleasure with no intercourse with the age of eight then it’s also not allowed for him to have sexual pleasure with her too, because it’s will lead to him having his sexual desires overtake him and he will cause her damage"
    i mentioned both physical and any form of damage, mental is yet again a form of physical damage

    "Reached puberty does not mean completed thus intercourse during puberty rather than after it had completed. 8-12 is the range when puberty begins, not ends. Your own sources show this but now you ignore these sources. Menstruation starts after breast budding not puberty."
    red herring fallacy and has nothing to do with my argument above, Again for the love of god pay attention
    the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 refers to girls who have not yet reached puberty I.e before the age of 8 i showed that menstruation doesn't happen until someone reach puberty
    in which i asked how does he know it's referring to age before 8 this has nothing to do with whither they are fully matured or not
    his argument was 65:4 refers to period before puberty, i demanded evidence for that when i showed that puberty start from the age of 8

    "Quote
    this is false, my sources state that any time of damage is not allowed, that include mental damage too


    No it isn't. It is still an exemption even if it has restriction. If this restrictions are met then the exemption to maturity is allowed. "

    No i did let me Quote myself again
    "However I can provide evidence that marriage with girls who have not yet reached puberty in islam or sex with them should be forbidden, by using similar Islamic ruling, this ruling state لأ ضرر و لا ضرار means (there shall be no harm done and there shall be no harm allowed) or (There is no injury nor return of injury) it’s found in Muwatta Malik Book 36, Hadith 31

    The implication of this Ruling is that, anything that Causes Harm should not be allowed, that is why smoking cigarettes were considered haram in some Islamic states regarding this ruling, no why I’m I stating it? Simply because having sex with prepubescent girls cause physical and mental harm, and by using such Ruling we can easily forbid sex with children before they reach puberty"

    i literally stated a ruling in Fiquh that state any form of damage should not by allowed, again please read my blog

    "An appeal to authority is when someone isn't an expert. You did nothing to show MA source is not an expert. You do not understand what the fallacy is nor did you support your claim. Your argument is nonsense.

    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

        Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
        Person A makes claim C about subject S.
        Therefore, C is true. "

    strawman i never claimed that they are experts
    an appeal to authority is when Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.
    A is the masked arab
    Authority is his 3 scholars
    Person A makes Claim C (in reference to child marriage)
    therefore C (Islam allowing child marriage for no reason) is true, duo to the 3 authority he cited

    therefore your out most poor defense of the masked arab is unbearable


    "No. I showed that experts disagree but are still experts. I was attacking your claim of a fallacy not MA's "all Sunni think X" You still haven't demonstrated the fallacy at all. "

    and I NEVER SAID they are not experts, i never denounced any of his sources therefore rending you a horrible reader

    "It is your argument as you have a counter-argument in issue #8. An argument you never supported at all. You still have no idea what the fallacy means. You never demonstrated that these people were not authorities, were not experts, etc. "

    No it's not my argument again my argument is as follows
    "The masked arab claimed that islam allow sex at any age, i showed that he mistranslated the sources and showed the complete opposite by showing that if any type of damage happen then it's not allowed
    the masked arab claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for such statement and provided sources that claim child marriage is only applicable when there is special benefits
    the masked arab claimed that 65:4 of the Quran allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence for such claim and showed that girls who have not yet menstruated can still hit puberty, which lead me to ask him how does he know this verse is referring to the period before puberty"


    "Which is a disagreement not a fallacy. You still have no idea what the fallacy means even after linking you a page telling you what it means. The rest of your point is useless based on your inability or unwillingness to understand what the fallacy means.

    Klingschor and Ramy have nothing to do with this at all. "

    again no logical counter argument at all, you have no idea how to read a blog let alone a fallacy, the masked arab cited these three videos as a response to anyone who were and i quote him "deluded" muslim will question his sources, therefore he cited these three videos as a response to the muslims who question him by saying  "look these scholars agree on child marriage, therefore my claim is right" that is appeal to authority fallacy

    as for Klingschor and Ramy yes they have everything to do with it, because ramey Used scholars as evidence for his claim klingschor replied with a number of scholars and said "if you want to play the game of authority ramey my guns are bigger than yours" this is what the masked arab did
    Klingschor accused Ramey of Appeal to Authority fallacy
    I'm doing the same with TMA

    "Never said you couldn't do that. Just that your point that he used a fallacy is false. All you have demonstrated is disagreement but not your many point about a fallacy."

    again this is false, his main use of the 3 videos that he cited which i responded to in issue 8 was because he said in case if any deluded muslim will question him then he cite 3 videos later on, this means like this "if you question my sources and my arguments here are three scholars in a video agreeing on child marriage" This is appeal to authority fallacy and you clearly don't know what a fallacy means

    "Yes it is since it has a counter-argument in it.... Did you not provide references? Do you not make an argument against MA in #8? "

    no i have not, I'm playing the same game the masked arab is doing, by quoting authorities like he did, these are not my main issues as i stated


    ""Where does your source allow for tradition in pedophilia? Of wait it doesn't mention it at all. Double standards your point is fallacious"
    this is false this shows you have not read my blog, so go back to the intruduction and read my citation to academic sexologist who explictly say that anyone who simply follow a tradtion and religion as justification for child marrige or even interourse is not defined as pedophile [/quote]

    Wrong. You source says that traditions which seem similar to pedophilia but the people may not have the mental illness of pedophilia. That is not an exemption to pedophilia but that people are assuming mental illness based on tradition which is a false diagnosis. Read your own sources. An exemption is that people X are pedophiles but are allowed to be and commit acts due to their religion. "

    again false my sources say that if anyone would follow a tradition or a religion that allow such act, he should not be considered a pedophile, this applies to Muhammad since he was following his Arabian tradition
    i will Quote it again

    "If arguably they were not pedophiles but following cultural or religious tradition, why is frequent sex with a child not a mental illness under those circumstances?"

    as you can see, this is directly from my source and it's stating that these people are merely following a tradition so they are not labeled pedophiles since sex was not their excuse but a tradition,, the source doesn't claim they are allowed to be, but claims they are NOT to be considered pedophiles when they are simply following a tradition
    since muhammad was simply following his tradition, therefore according to sexologist he is not to be considered a pedophile

    please read carefully next time

    I'm done here
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #82 - March 02, 2016, 08:46 PM

    Please go. This is beyond confusing.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #83 - March 02, 2016, 09:38 PM


    this is false I'm simply Quoting sources that disagree with the masked arab, and correct his false translations AGAIN here is my main argument


    Yes, I never said otherwise. However what I am saying is the exemption to maturity opens the doors to abuse by pedophila. My arguement not MA's arguement. Do you understand or do I need to use smaller words?

    Quote
    scholars agreed that you can't have sex with a child before they are physically capable to handle it


    Except they don't since both you and MA have source that contradict this claim. You still have not show MA sources are not authorities. You did nothing to substanite your claims as you have no idea what the fallacy means.

    Quote
    the masked arab claimed that a man can have sexual intercourse with a child at any age, i showed he mistranslated several sources to justify this claim, and he claimed that you can marry at any age for no reason at all, i demanded evidence for that


    You made an irrelevant argument as you do not understand basic English. Being able to withstand something means something is ready for whatever it withstands.

    Quote
    the masked arab claimed that verse 65:4 allow marriage with prepubescent girls, i asked for evidence and i proceeded to show that girls at the age of 8-12 reach puberty within that time menstruation occquire, and this verse is referring to the period before menstruation, and as i explained mensuration happen 3 years after puberty, which leaves me with the question the the masked arab "how do you know this verse is referring to the period before puberty?"


    Irrelevant. It is not my argument. I do not need to response to arguments I never made.

    Quote
    the masked arab claims you can have sex at any age, i respond with the fact that he mistranslated his sources to justify his claim, and with sources of the same schools of thought that state the wrong opinion
    he claimed you can marry at any age for no reason, i demanded evidence for it and showed scholars claiming that early age marriage can only be used if there is special benefits for her.
    the masked arab used verse 65:4 to justify his claim that islam allow sex with prepubescent girls, i demanded evidence and proceed to show that menstruation happen after reaching puberty and proceeded with a question of how does he know this verse is referring to girls before puberty then?


    Irrelevant as that is not my argument. You want me to defense an argument I never made. That is called a strawman and projection

    Quote
    this is false, my sources state that any time of damage is not allowed, that include mental damage too


    Irrelevant as a pedophilia can hide his illness, it could not even be diagnosed by an expert thus unknown to all but him. Since no one is aware of the danger they can not rule against a danger they are not aware of.


    Quote
    this is false, my sources are Direct response to the masked arab OWN appeal to authority, the masked arab cited 3 videos within his video to scholars who appear to be condoning child marriage, the masked arab played the game of authority i simply showed him that i can do the exact same, this is NOT ME EXCLUSIVELY doing authority citation, but rather me playing the same game the masked arab did, please read Issue8 carefully


    Nope. You still do not understand the fallacy. You argument is nonsense since the first premise is false.

    Quote
    but later on you refuted the masked arab by saying there is major conflict between the scholars, if there is major conflict how can he claim that all schools of thought from sunnies unanimously agree that it's permissible to have sex with a child at any age?


    So what if I refuted him? I am not arguing his points nor his argument. I am attacking your arguments. Do you still not understand this?

    My argument not his. Attacking your argument not defending his
    My argument not his. Attacking your argument not defending his
    My argument not his. Attacking your argument not defending his

    Quote
    and Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT i explicitly accused the masked arab of appeal to authority fallacy you have not read the blog carefully, this is my quote
    "the masked arab calls any muslims who question him as “deluded” this is rather an irrational insult when is clearly faced with skepticism however the purpose of this is him citing 2 online videos of muslim clerics affirming that the young age marriage is allowed in islam

     

    #8 is a response to MA argument thus a counter-argument. You do not even know what an argument is.....

    http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/counter-argument
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterargument
    http://www.shoreline.edu/doldham/101/html/what%20is%20a%20c-a.htm


    Quote
    As I demonstrated above scholars are actually in disagreement regarding the age of sexual intercourse, however this is not my main issue here, the main issue is citing these video is considered an appeal to authority fallacy"


    You still do not understand the fallacy.

    "As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

    In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

    What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

    In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

    It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger. "

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

    Quote
    as you can see, I'm simply stating that it's fallacious to use these 3 videos by the masked arab, so i simply played the same game of my own
    shall we all blame Klingschor when he replied to ramy when Ramy used Authority and Klingschor did the same just to demonstrate that there are scholars who do agree with him?


    Expert you didn't since you still have no idea what the fallacy means. Klingschor and Ramy are irrelevant, red herring. They are not part of this discussion, they provided nothing to it, they are not talking in this forum in this thread.

    Quote
    AGAIN Issue8 IS NOT MY ARGUMENT, be me demonstrating that i can play authority game like the masked arab, please pay attention again, i will site my main argument, do you want to look at my blog? then look at the following


    #8 contains a counter argument thus has your argument in it. You do not know what an argument means.


    Yes it is since it has a counter-argument in it.... Did you not provide references? Do you not make an argument against MA in #8?

    Quote
    this is a clear example that you have not read my blog let alone you have not paied attention to it, anyone who did can clearly see it in the start of the blog, this shows your lack of observation, therefore your claims falls apart


    Expect that I have read your blog. Your English is so poor it causes you to make mistakes.

    Substantiate your claims otherwise your point is nonsense.


    No I read it.  You make comprehension mistakes as pointed out above."

    Quote
    "However I can provide evidence that marriage with girls who have not yet reached puberty in islam or sex with them should be forbidden, by using similar Islamic ruling, this ruling state لأ ضرر و لا ضرار means (there shall be no harm done and there shall be no harm allowed) or (There is no injury nor return of injury) it’s found in Muwatta Malik Book 36, Hadith 31


    So what? You are arguing a point I never made. Pay attention.

    Quote
    The implication of this Ruling is that, anything that Causes Harm should not be allowed, that is why smoking cigarettes were considered haram in some Islamic states regarding this ruling, no why I’m I stating it? Simply because having sex with prepubescent girls cause physical and mental harm, and by using such Ruling we can easily forbid sex with children before they reach puberty"


    If people are unaware of danger they can not prevent harm nor make a ruling on it. That is my point. Not that the sources says sex is allowed but that it opens the doors to abuse by allowing underage marriage. A point which I backed up by showing child marriage is a leading issues with child abuse.....

    Quote
    i literally stated a ruling in Fiquh that state any form of damage should not by allowed, again please read my blog


    Irrelevant as it does not prevent abuse

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse

    Quote
    strawman i never claimed that they are experts


    Wrong as you didn't know what the fallacy was which is about non-experts giving opinions not experts giving opinions my point stands and your argument collapses due to your own ignorance.

    Quote
    an appeal to authority is when Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.
    A is the masked arab
    Authority is his 3 scholars
    Person A makes Claim C (in reference to child marriage)


    Wrong. A are the sources MA used. He never claimed to be an expert. Your argument is dead. You do not understand the fallacy even when you copied the example.

    Quote
    again no logical counter argument at all, you have no idea how to read a blog let alone a fallacy, the masked arab cited these three videos as a response to anyone who were and i quote him "deluded" muslim will question his sources, therefore he cited these three videos as a response to the muslims who question him by saying  "look these scholars agree on child marriage, therefore my claim is right" that is appeal to authority fallacy


    Your point is moot since that is not my argument. Strawman.

    Quote
    as for Klingschor and Ramy yes they have everything to do with it, because ramey Used scholars as evidence for his claim klingschor replied with a number of scholars and said "if you want to play the game of authority ramey my guns are bigger than yours" this is what the masked arab did


    They never made these arguments, they took no part in the discussion, they are not taking part in this thread. They are completely irrelevant. So one else being right or wrong in a completely separate topic have nothing to do with these arguments. Red herring.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

    Quote
    Klingschor accused Ramey of Appeal to Authority fallacy
    I'm doing the same with TMA


    Then you both do not understand what the fallacy is. Congratulation on find another person that is as clueless as yourself

    Quote
    again this is false, his main use of the 3 videos that he cited which i responded to in issue 8 was because he said in case if any deluded muslim will question him then he cite 3 videos later on, this means like this "if you question my sources and my arguments here are three scholars in a video agreeing on child marriage" This is appeal to authority fallacy and you clearly don't know what a fallacy means


    Except I do, I linked a source showing that I fully understand it. Im not the one that doesn't understand the fallacy after coping it then messing up

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

    Quote
    no i have not, I'm playing the same game the masked arab is doing, by quoting authorities like he did, these are not my main issues as i stated


    Same game, same mistakes

    Quote
    this is false this shows you have not read my blog, so go back to the intruduction and read my citation to academic sexologist who explictly say that anyone who simply follow a tradtion and religion as justification for child marrige or even interourse is not defined as pedophile


    Yes but that is not an exemption that is a misdiagnosis. You can not tell the difference thus you argument is moot.

    Quote
    again false my sources say that if anyone would follow a tradition or a religion that allow such act, he should not be considered a pedophile, this applies to Muhammad since he was following his Arabian tradition


    Except that that it is a misdiagnosis not an exemption.

    Quote
    "If arguably they were not pedophiles but following cultural or religious tradition, why is frequent sex with a child not a mental illness under those circumstances?"


    If they were not pedophiles as in the mental illness they this is not an exception to the mental illness but people using tradition to misdiagnosis a condition. You do not understand the difference due to your poor English thus are confused. You also quoted-mined which calls in to question if people had the mental illness or were following custom. One can still be a pedophilia and follow tradition these are not mutually exclusive.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exemption
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misdiagnosis

    " “These Cross-Cultural Examples are not cited to argue for similar practices in Los Angeles or London. But are we to conclude that all the adults engaged in these practices were mentally ill? If arguably they were not pedophiles but following cultural or religious tradition, why is frequent sex with a child not a mental illness under those circumstances?
    For Skeptics of relevance of these cited exotic examples, for three centuries the age of consent in England was 10. This was Not the same loin cloth clad tribe living on side of a volcano, but the nation for six centuries was already graduating students from Oxford and Cambridge, Further, the time when age of consent was 10 was not in a period contemporaneous with Cromagnon Man, But continued to within 38 years of World War I, The Impetus to Raise the age of sexual consent in England from 10 years was Fueled not by an outrage over pedophilia perse, but concerns over child prostitution, Changes in employment law during the nineteenth century were protecting children from long hours of factory labor, leaving them more accessible for sexual service as the only means of support, Child prostitution was rampant (Bullough 1990). Were all customers pedophiles? Were they all mentally ill?"

    Quote
    as you can see, this is directly from my source and it's stating that these people are merely following a tradition so they are not labeled pedophiles since sex was not their excuse but a tradition,, the source doesn't claim they are allowed to be, but claims they are NOT to be considered pedophiles when they are simply following a tradition
    since muhammad was simply following his tradition, therefore according to sexologist he is not to be considered a pedophile


    A source you oblivious can not understand since you can not tell the difference between an exemption and a misdiagnosis. Again one can follow a tradition and still be a pedophilia as it is a mental illness not an act. The act is child abuse in which child marriage is considered child abuse.

    Quote
    please read carefully next time


    Enroll in English classes.

    Quote
    I'm done here


    Like you were last time?
  • My responses to the masked arab
     Reply #84 - March 31, 2017, 05:37 AM

    the reason why i use Sunni tradition in my blog even though i don't necessarily believe in it is because when someone misrepresent a hadith or a narration i better treat it justly, what i mean by that if someone cite a weak hadith for example i tell them this hadith is classified as weak, or when someone misrepresent a Sunni tradition then i better represent it accurately and correct their mistakes using the same tradition

    also being purely a quranist in my reply will mean i won't be able to use alot of sources, and my response will more likely be inconvenant

    Mohamed doesn't look like a holy messenger at all... Now all what you are doing is defending Islam. Isn't that obvious you?  You have been brainwashed from birth and told islam is right and all other religions are nonsense! When you look at the activities of mohamed,  isn't it obvious he's a false prophet? Why write pages and pages to defend him?  Come out of the brainwashed zone and start thinking practically..
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »