Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

[KhaliL]

KhaliL,

If you are reading this, you should know my attitude towards your childish and revolting tricks of the "world watching" the "kufr and Islam" is that of contempt and nothing else.

Your latest post in that thread further proves why my termination of the debate is justified.

To your last post in that thread - Barking dogs do not affect me in the least.

Excuse me MuhaMADan, you are obviously mistaking me for someone who gives a damn. I did give you some damn but that was in the past.

And I am not interested to engage in shouting games with a coward like you. Go back to your delusional world dreaming of orgies with 72 high bosomed virgins in your Allah-the pimp's brothel.

You are not even beneath my contempt. So this would be my last post to you in in this forum. No more bones for you.

KF

[skynightblaze]

@BOT

Calling criminal a criminal is not abuse and incivility. Your prophet was a criminal.Mohhamedian logic is as follows.

1) Muhhamad killed people yet the kafirs should not call him a murderer.

2)Muhhamad took prisoners of war and had sex with them and yet no kafir should call him a rapist even though we know that no woman would consent for sex with the killer of her family .

3) Muhhamad had sex with a kid and yet the kafirs should not call him a paedophile.

4) Muhhamad used terror to gain power(his own confession in a hadith) and yet the kafirs should not call him a terrorist.

5) Muhhamad used loot the caravans and yet the kafir should not call him a thief.


IF you dont like us calling him by those names then you should blame your thug and not us.These acts are heinous crimes and no matter what the context was ( excuses invented by muslims although invalid) an ordinary peace loving man cannot commit them .It takes only a heart of a criminal to do those activities.

[winston]

Spoiler! :

BOT1,

You could have tried to address the issues raised by Khalil at any point if you were truly serious about the debate. Khalils responses and assertions were heavily backed up by quotations and citations from authentic sources of Islamic scripture. If your arguments had any substance to them you would have immediately addressed his points and provided strong evidence to support them. You did not do this, instead you decided to rely on a host of logical fallacies to stifle the flow of the debate and prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place.

It's disappointing but not surprising because the evidence was against you from the start. I hope you will take the time to re-read your discussion with Khalil and perform some kind of introspective analysis of your own performance. By doing this I hope you will come to see that even if you had been sincere in addressing the topic of this debate beyond the first assertions, that you have in fact been proven wrong based on the evidence presented.

Winston

I respect your opinion which is eloquently and respectully stated. However, I disagree with it.

My debate opponent failed to prove that Islam advocates murderous rage against Jews as a whole, like he ventured to do. As I showed, when read the verses he highlights from the Muslim prespective, in their textual and historical context, and the context of Islamic teachings in general, a Muslim is not led to a murderous rage towards Jews - his healthy contempt towards unbelief, however, is in no way to be construed as an abnormal and obssessive form of hatred for any group of people. Rather, Islam beliefs, when explained on the basis of elementary philosophy (that I employed to refute my debate opponent's faulty comparisons and his self-serving "psychoanalysis" of a typical Muslim mind), instills an open minded attitude towards the Kafir, which is that of disliking their disbelief in God or Islam at every point - the Kufr, but of personalized hatred of individuals at no point - that of individual kafir.

However, the debate was terminated due to my debate opponent's inappropriate conduct, and thus I finished at a disadvantage of not being able to refute his latest contribution - something that my opponent intended, as far as I am concerned. This might paint a picture that a non-Muslim of a FFI sort would like to see, however, it matters very little to the actual substance of the debate.

Personally I did not get that impression from the debate because it did not really progress to the point where both sides of the story had been told fully. You have claimed this is because Khalil was unnecessarily insulting, which is debatable in itself. My opinion is that, with the exception of a few derogatory remarks aimed towards Mohammed (not you personally) Khalils argument was much better constructed simply because he provided strong evidence to prove his point. You responded by arguing about technicalities and frivolous issues which does not give a good reflection of your position. Khalil can not argue that Islam promotes hatred of the Jews without using language that would be offensive to someone who does not hold those views. Instead of getting offended and stopping the debate you should have focussed on responding to the evidence provided and refutting it logically. That way the neutral reader would be in a good position to determine whether Islam does promote hatred or if Khalil is simply a bigot. Like I said though, on the basis of the evidence provided and your refusal to address it I can only conclude that Khalils assertions are correct.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

KhaliL,

If you are reading this, you should know my attitude towards your childish and revolting tricks of the "world watching" the "kufr and Islam" is that of contempt and nothing else.

Your latest post in that thread further proves why my termination of the debate is justified.

To your last post in that thread - Barking dogs do not affect me in the least.

Excuse me MuhaMADan, you are obviously mistaking me for someone who gives a damn. I did give you some damn but that was in the past.

I don't care if you give a damn or don't, but you gave a damn in this case. This was my bait, and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

Now the safe atmosphere of a exclusive debate won't protect you any longer.

Your using an offensive term for Musilm shows that when I referred to you as a barking dog, I was not wrong.

And I am not interested to engage in shouting games with a coward like you. Go back to your delusional world dreaming of orgies with 72 high bosomed virgins in your Allah-the pimp's brothel.

Stop barking, jack. Or Haik....whatever.

You are not even beneath my contempt. So this would be my last post to you in in this forum. No more bones for you.

KF

I do not need bones. It is dogs who do. So again, no bones for you.

Now crawl back to your pit. I should never see you again barking in my direction.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

Spoiler! :

BOT1,

You could have tried to address the issues raised by Khalil at any point if you were truly serious about the debate. Khalils responses and assertions were heavily backed up by quotations and citations from authentic sources of Islamic scripture. If your arguments had any substance to them you would have immediately addressed his points and provided strong evidence to support them. You did not do this, instead you decided to rely on a host of logical fallacies to stifle the flow of the debate and prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place.

It's disappointing but not surprising because the evidence was against you from the start. I hope you will take the time to re-read your discussion with Khalil and perform some kind of introspective analysis of your own performance. By doing this I hope you will come to see that even if you had been sincere in addressing the topic of this debate beyond the first assertions, that you have in fact been proven wrong based on the evidence presented.

Winston

I respect your opinion which is eloquently and respectully stated. However, I disagree with it.

My debate opponent failed to prove that Islam advocates murderous rage against Jews as a whole, like he ventured to do. As I showed, when read the verses he highlights from the Muslim prespective, in their textual and historical context, and the context of Islamic teachings in general, a Muslim is not led to a murderous rage towards Jews - his healthy contempt towards unbelief, however, is in no way to be construed as an abnormal and obssessive form of hatred for any group of people. Rather, Islam beliefs, when explained on the basis of elementary philosophy (that I employed to refute my debate opponent's faulty comparisons and his self-serving "psychoanalysis" of a typical Muslim mind), instills an open minded attitude towards the Kafir, which is that of disliking their disbelief in God or Islam at every point - the Kufr, but of personalized hatred of individuals at no point - that of individual kafir.

However, the debate was terminated due to my debate opponent's inappropriate conduct, and thus I finished at a disadvantage of not being able to refute his latest contribution - something that my opponent intended, as far as I am concerned. This might paint a picture that a non-Muslim of a FFI sort would like to see, however, it matters very little to the actual substance of the debate.

Personally I did not get that impression from the debate because it did not really progress to the point where both sides of the story had been told fully. You have claimed this is because Khalil was unnecessarily insulting, which is debatable in itself. My opinion is that, with the exception of a few derogatory remarks aimed towards Mohammed (not you personally) Khalils argument was much better constructed simply because he provided strong evidence to prove his point. You responded by arguing about technicalities and frivolous issues which does not give a good reflection of your position. Khalil can not argue that Islam promotes hatred of the Jews without using language that would be offensive to someone who does not hold those views.

What can justify my debate opponent's childish reptition of accusations which constitute separate debate topics within themselves any way necessary to prove the contention my debate opponent set to prove?

I again disagree with you that my debate opponent's provided material constitute "srong evidence" to prove his claim.

That "evidence" was refuted by the necessary material from my side. However, the round of postings of my debate opponent have not been dully answered for obvoius reasons, but they can be easily refuted too.

That's where I say, I finisted at a seeming "disvantage".

Instead of getting offended and stopping the debate you should have focussed on responding to the evidence provided and refutting it logically. That way the neutral reader would be in a good position to determine whether Islam does promote hatred or if Khalil is simply a bigot. Like I said though, on the basis of the evidence provided and your refusal to address it I can only conclude that Khalils assertions are correct.

Well, we'll have agree to disagree.

I can't continue with a person who employs low tactics as my debate opponent did in the postings made of that of attacking my religious figures in order to cause unnecessary offence to me. I suspended the debate, and sought to discuss these things with my debate opponent, the response to which is also in front of you. Nothing did it, so I had to terminate the debate.

[charleslemartel]

By the way, KhaliL made certain statements about Muhammad in the debate which you found offensive. These statements were the reasons you used to terminate the debate. Those statements are also the charges by Ali Sina against Muhammad. Would you like to refute them in separate thread (s)?

I might, at my leisure and my convinience.

May your God give you courage and fortitude to defend his messenger. We shall wait

[Pragmatist]

By the way, KhaliL made certain statements about Muhammad in the debate which you found offensive. These statements were the reasons you used to terminate the debate. Those statements are also the charges by Ali Sina against Muhammad. Would you like to refute them in separate thread (s)?

I might, at my leisure and my convinience.

May your God give you courage and fortitude to defend his messenger. We shall wait

Is that until Hell freezes over or the cows come home? Or maybe more appropriately for BALLS of GLASS until pigs fly.

[winston]

What can justify my debate opponent's childish reptition of accusations which constitute separate debate topics within themselves any way necessary to prove the contention my debate opponent set to prove?

I again disagree with you that my debate opponent's provided material constitute "srong evidence" to prove his claim.

That "evidence" was refuted by the necessary material from my side. However, the round of postings of my debate opponent have not been dully answered for obvoius reasons, but they can be easily refuted too.

That's where I say, I finisted at a seeming "disvantage".

Ok I see what you are saying, however I think you should have continued with the debate in any case. If Khalil was making childish and unfounded accusations throughout the debate then any fair minded reader would easily have seen that and it would certainly count against him. On balance though I don't believe Khalil said anything substanially irrelevant for you to just stop the debate but as you say we may just have to agree to disagree there. How can Khalil assert that Islam promotes hatred without using those terms himself in his accusation? I don't think this was done to cause you offence but to highlight the words and deeds of Mohammed in order to prove his point.

]Instead of getting offended and stopping the debate you should have focussed on responding to the evidence provided and refutting it logically. That way the neutral reader would be in a good position to determine whether Islam does promote hatred or if Khalil is simply a bigot. Like I said though, on the basis of the evidence provided and your refusal to address it I can only conclude that Khalils assertions are correct.

Well, we'll have agree to disagree.

I can't continue with a person who employs low tactics as my debate opponent did in the postings made of that of attacking my religious figures in order to cause unnecessary offence to me. I suspended the debate, and sought to discuss these things with my debate opponent, the response to which is also in front of you. Nothing did it, so I had to terminate the debate.

That may or may not be the case, but I would suggest that you do not engage in debates with people if your skin is too thin because they will frequently end in this manner in the future also.

Regards,

Winston

[charleslemartel]

By the way, KhaliL made certain statements about Muhammad in the debate which you found offensive. These statements were the reasons you used to terminate the debate. Those statements are also the charges by Ali Sina against Muhammad. Would you like to refute them in separate thread (s)?

I might, at my leisure and my convinience.

May your God give you courage and fortitude to defend his messenger. We shall wait

Is that until Hell freezes over or the cows come home? Or maybe more appropriately for BALLS of GLASS until pigs fly.

You might find it hilarious, but I find it very sad and unfortunate that the BOT has ample leisure and convenience to spend hours on this forum defending Hamas, but does not have leisure and convenience to defend the uswa hasana and al insaan al kaamil. May Allah forgive him and not burn him in hell fire for not bothering to spend a few minutes per day to defend his last messenger.

[Pragmatist]

By the way, KhaliL made certain statements about Muhammad in the debate which you found offensive. These statements were the reasons you used to terminate the debate. Those statements are also the charges by Ali Sina against Muhammad. Would you like to refute them in separate thread (s)?

I might, at my leisure and my convinience.

May your God give you courage and fortitude to defend his messenger. We shall wait

This COWARD with BALLS of GLASS will never see the light of day again no matter how many posts he makes everyone will Know he is a RUNAWAY

[skynightblaze]

@BOT

[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)


47.35.
[047:035] So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds..


You brought up 60:8 -9 to tell us that you are supposed to fight only those who oppress you but 47:35 tells us that you are not supposed to make peace while you have the upper hand which means having a upper hand is a sufficient condition for you to fight and not engage in peace.So tells us what is the condition for you to fight? Is it having the upper hand or is it self defense?

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

By the way, KhaliL made certain statements about Muhammad in the debate which you found offensive. These statements were the reasons you used to terminate the debate. Those statements are also the charges by Ali Sina against Muhammad. Would you like to refute them in separate thread (s)?

I might, at my leisure and my convinience.

May your God give you courage and fortitude to defend his messenger. We shall wait

He doesn't need defending that is the main point. From day one, there were many like my you people or my debate opponent.

They vanished to dust, while the name of the Prophet lives - and will continue to live forever.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

What can justify my debate opponent's childish reptition of accusations which constitute separate debate topics within themselves any way necessary to prove the contention my debate opponent set to prove?

I again disagree with you that my debate opponent's provided material constitute "srong evidence" to prove his claim.

That "evidence" was refuted by the necessary material from my side. However, the round of postings of my debate opponent have not been dully answered for obvoius reasons, but they can be easily refuted too.

That's where I say, I finisted at a seeming "disvantage".

Ok I see what you are saying, however I think you should have continued with the debate in any case. If Khalil was making childish and unfounded accusations throughout the debate then any fair minded reader would easily have seen that and it would certainly count against him. On balance though I don't believe Khalil said anything substanially irrelevant for you to just stop the debate but as you say we may just have to agree to disagree there. How can Khalil assert that Islam promotes hatred without using those terms himself in his accusation? I don't think this was done to cause you offence but to highlight the words and deeds of Mohammed in order to prove his point.

There are two issues here. One is that of logical irrelevence. My debate opponent's specific allegations against Muhammad (p) were a diversion that could have been dealt as such within the debate.

However, the issue which caused the termination of the debate was the WAY my debate opponent stated those allegations as facts, and not only that, repeated them more than once in ways that could only be taken as naked attacks on my religious figures. Certainly, "your prophet was this, your prophet was that" is a not a form of attack which is appropriate in a scholarly debate. I notified my debate opponent about this, but we couldn't agree to the fact that such utterances are not conducive for a proper scholarly dialogue, and therefore I had to terminate the debate.

Now back to the issue of logic - whatever my debate opponent raised about Prophet Muhammad (p) does not have any effect on the topic that was discussed in that thread - Jews in Islam, and I don't how you are able to link the two and say that it was necessary.

]Instead of getting offended and stopping the debate you should have focussed on responding to the evidence provided and refutting it logically. That way the neutral reader would be in a good position to determine whether Islam does promote hatred or if Khalil is simply a bigot. Like I said though, on the basis of the evidence provided and your refusal to address it I can only conclude that Khalils assertions are correct.

Well, we'll have agree to disagree.

I can't continue with a person who employs low tactics as my debate opponent did in the postings made of that of attacking my religious figures in order to cause unnecessary offence to me. I suspended the debate, and sought to discuss these things with my debate opponent, the response to which is also in front of you. Nothing did it, so I had to terminate the debate.

That may or may not be the case, but I would suggest that you do not engage in debates with people if your skin is too thin because they will frequently end in this manner in the future also.

Regards,

Winston

It is difficult to have a proper scholarly debates on topics as firey as religion. However, it is not impossible.

Self-control is the key. But only people with full developed mental faculties are capable of that.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

@BOT

[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)

The above verse is self-explanatory.

47.35.
[047:035] So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds..


You brought up 60:8 -9 to tell us that you are supposed to fight only those who oppress you but 47:35 tells us that you are not supposed to make peace while you have the upper hand which means having a upper hand is a sufficient condition for you to fight and not engage in peace.So tells us what is the condition for you to fight? Is it having the upper hand or is it self defense?

The condition for the fight in stipulated in Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9.

And you are involved in a wrong interpretation of the second verse you quoted.

It does not say what you say it does. First of all, your translation is a mallicious one. It is not the standard translation of the Qur'an used by Muslims.

Quote this verse in the standard Qur'anic translations like Yousuf Ali, or Pickthal.

I do not give self-proclaimed Arabic speakers and translators at FFI more importance than I give to the flies that caught my dodg last summer.

[Chiclets]

Hey Bouncing Balls,

Whenever I see your posts this gem comes to mind ....
Voltaire:
"The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reason."

[charleslemartel]

He doesn't need defending that is the main point. From day one, there were many like my you people or my debate opponent.

They vanished to dust, while the name of the Prophet lives - and will continue to live forever.

That does not mean a thing. The name of Hitler and Genghis Khan would also continue to live forever.

[charleslemartel]

It is difficult to have a proper scholarly debates on topics as firey as religion. However, it is not impossible.

Self-control is the key. But only people with full developed mental faculties are capable of that.

Yeah. Proper scholarly debates can be conducted by only people with full developed mental faculties who can believe any BS like Gibril, Allah and hell without any evidence, right?

[Pragmatist]

It is difficult to have a proper scholarly debates on topics as firey as religion. However, it is not impossible.

Self-control is the key. But only people with full developed mental faculties are capable of that.

Yeah. Proper scholarly debates can be conducted by only people with full developed mental faculties who can believe any BS like Gibril, Allah and hell without any evidence, right?

If only BALLS of GLASS the COWARD had guts and put as much effort into debating as he has into defending his cowardly stupidity in NOT debating. Then he would not be getting all the stick that he is but then if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle and BALLS despite all his posturing swaggering and hot air spouting definitely does not have any. Just like the cowardly Hamas warriors that hide behind women and children that he admires so much. What does that tell you about the sort of nonentity this buffoon is.

[skynightblaze]

@BOT

[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)

The above verse is self-explanatory.

47.35.
[047:035] So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds..


You brought up 60:8 -9 to tell us that you are supposed to fight only those who oppress you but 47:35 tells us that you are not supposed to make peace while you have the upper hand which means having a upper hand is a sufficient condition for you to fight and not engage in peace.So tells us what is the condition for you to fight? Is it having the upper hand or is it self defense?

The condition for the fight in stipulated in Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9.

And you are involved in a wrong interpretation of the second verse you quoted.

It does not say what you say it does. First of all, your translation is a mallicious one. It is not the standard translation of the Qur'an used by Muslims.

Quote this verse in the standard Qur'anic translations like Yousuf Ali, or Pickthal.

I do not give self-proclaimed Arabic speakers and translators at FFI more importance than I give to the flies that caught my dodg last summer.

Pickthall:
[047:035] So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actio

The verse is clear itself. I dont need tafsirs to determine but lets what they say : After reading all the tafsirs why should we take your opinion as the standard over all these tafsir scholars? The condition for you to fight is self defense as well as to fight when you are in majority. This is the true and ugly face of islam.

So do not falter, [do not] be weak, and [do not] call for peace (read salm or silm), that is to say, a truce with the disbelievers should you encounter them, when you have the upper hand (al-a‘lawna: the third letter of the triliteral root, wāw, has been omitted), [when you are] the victors, the vanquishers, and God is with you, helping and assisting, and He will not stint you, diminish you, in [the reward for] your works, that is to say, of the reward for them.

Not get weak from the fighting and let not any infidels to peaceful reconciliation when you have upper hand

Obey Allah and his messenger requires fighting and do not make your position weakened nor tolerate “Kufr” when you (Muslims) are advancing

.

Those who disbelieve and die in disbelief will not be forgiven. Then the Almighty forbade believers from the weakness and vulnerability, he said: do not get weak from the fighting, and not to let the infidels peace from you. Qatada said: the meaning of the verse is "be not the first to offer peace"

(So do not lose heart) meaning, do not be weak concerning the enemies.

(and beg for peace) meaning, compromise, peace, and ending the fighting between you and the disbelievers while you are in a position of power, both in great numbers and preparations. Thus, Allah says,
(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah's Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years.

(So do not falter) do not weaken, O believer, upon fighting the disbelievers (and cry out for peace) and it is said this means: for Islam before fighting (when you (will be) the uppermost) when you are the victorious and the ultimate consequence will be in your favour, (and Allah is with you) He helps you to defeat your enemy, (and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions) and He will not diminish the works in which you engage during jihad.

[Pragmatist]

My comments on BALLS of GLASS's attempts to defend his RUNAWAY from KhaliL in the Debate Comments thread . He is just as PATHETIC here as he was in the one to one. He is still a bag of 'wind and piss" and no substance. What more can be said of this COWARD. He can't even face up to KhaliL in the normal threads.