Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:This post is addressed to The Cat
Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:This post is addressed to The Cat
Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:This post is addressed to The Cat
Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.
You're not the only one.
crazymonkie wrote:Even granting your interpretation is correct.... it's only correct for the Latin meaning. Things have changed quite a bit since the days of togas and Europe-wide Celts. Where, for instance, is the "secular" aspect that I keep bringing up? Nowhere in Rome, because state and religion were one; blasphemy or heresy was the same thing as sedition
crazymonkie wrote:Of course all people grant laws legitimacy.... BUT the legitimacy is NOT based upon who does/does not uphold them.
crazymonkie wrote:So what are these natural laws? Specific examples, in the Quran, please- not just platitudes or claims.
And what is the "likeness of Abraham"? Where do Muslims get this? And so- again, we come to the crux of the matter. You're talking cosmic. You're talking RELIGIOUS. Or at least metaphysical. WHERE IN ANY MODERN CONSTITUTION (not counting preambles, which are the stating of general principles, and not laws) IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF BEING RIGHT WITH A COSMIC ORDER?
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.....
Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
The Cat wrote:An etymological definition is not my interpretation. For the Romans the emperor was the embodiment of the gods so his laws and that of the
empire were both secular and religious. Same is going still in England in its caesaropapism, so we also do have secular priests...
In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
Secular implies the whole Cosmic Order of the Natural Laws as opposed to the afterlife!
crazymonkie wrote:Of course all people grant laws legitimacy.... BUT the legitimacy is NOT based upon who does/does not uphold them.
As per the law: no one is to take justice into his own hands (jungle rule), for that goes against the common good. See?
crazymonkie wrote:So what are these natural laws? Specific examples, in the Quran, please- not just platitudes or claims.
And what is the "likeness of Abraham"? Where do Muslims get this? And so- again, we come to the crux of the matter. You're talking cosmic. You're talking RELIGIOUS. Or at least metaphysical. WHERE IN ANY MODERN CONSTITUTION (not counting preambles, which are the stating of general principles, and not laws) IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF BEING RIGHT WITH A COSMIC ORDER?
We seen above how the Cosmic Order is rather secular than religious, based on length of time...
The binding order of nature is thus embedded in the Vedas' Rta/Dharma, the Koranic deen AND... the US founding documents!
As per the Koran itself, I've asked to read Surah 57. You must understand it as similitudes of that Cosmic Order. I hope you can...
So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.
That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.
Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.
crazymonkie wrote:The Cat wrote:In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
Go ahead and ask someone if secular laws are meant to be "timeless, eternal...
crazymonkie wrote:crazymonkie wrote:The Cat wrote:So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.
That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.
Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows
You didn't say that in your opening post.
The Cat wrote:You are unable to read what is written. Saeculum refers to length of time as OPPOSED to what is timeless.![]()
![]()
The Cat wrote:You CAN'T read properly.
As this sum up your whole attitude. I see no point in going on with a mule...![]()
crazymonkie_ wrote:Or, in other words, you can't reply to my valid points and are once again nitpicking the errors I made in my post.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.
Why not address your confusion to the person who made the post?
crazymonkie_ wrote:How is it "honoring" him to ask him when he converted to Islam? It's pretty obvious that the context of the quotes you mined out were to point out how Muslims ALWAYS do the same dirty (attempted) tricks he used in the post directed to me: He tried to insult me (or copied the bad habits of Muslim posters?) by saying "simpleton karifun"- to which I said "When did you convert to Islam?" Because otherwise the "simpleton karifun" doesn't make sense.
He then said "Now, look how your buddy (Mbl)..." To which I said "What is it about you Muslims mixing up consonance in argument with friendship?" Emphasis added.
How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.
My replies could only be taken as "honoring" The Cat from someone who first entirely ignores the meaning of my replies, and second assumed a priori (google "a priori" for a definition) that Islam was some great thing, that associating someone with the belief system was in and of itself a good thing. Neither is true.
Clear now?
I did. That post was addressed to the person known as The Cat.
Crazy, have some sense of humor, please. Instead of writing "accusing him", I chose "honoring him". I was being sarcastic.
You have been using the the common argumentative fallacy, which the non-Muslims use and do all the time. Imho, the poster was also being sarcastic, when he called MBL your buddy. Ain't he your buddy on the forum? There is no need to go ballistic.
crazymonkie_ wrote:And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.
crazymonkie_ wrote: How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:crazymonkie_ wrote:And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.
If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.
A few posts above, you wrote to me:crazymonkie_ wrote: How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.
AhmedBahgat wrote:Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:crazymonkie_ wrote:And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.
If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.
A few posts above, you wrote to me:crazymonkie_ wrote: How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.
![]()
he is a dummb bum, isn't he
Good catch
The Cat wrote:Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:This post is addressed to The Cat
Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.
You're not the only one.
Anthony de Mello:
"I wish to become a teacher of the Truth." ---"Are you prepared to be ridiculed, ignored and starving till you are forty-five?"
"I am. But tell me: What will happen after I am forty-five?" ---"You will have grown accustomed to it."
Nobody can be said to have attained the pinnacle of Truth
until a thousand sincere people have denounced him for blasphemy.
The master enjoined not austerity, but moderation. If we truly enjoyed things, he claimed,
we would be spontaneously moderate. Asked why he was so opposed to ascetical practices,
he replied, "Because they produce pleasure-haters who always become people-haters — rigid and cruel."
As the Arabs say, "The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.''
The Cat wrote:crazymonkie wrote:Even granting your interpretation is correct.... it's only correct for the Latin meaning. Things have changed quite a bit since the days of togas and Europe-wide Celts. Where, for instance, is the "secular" aspect that I keep bringing up? Nowhere in Rome, because state and religion were one; blasphemy or heresy was the same thing as sedition
An etymological definition is not my interpretation. For the Romans the emperor was the embodiment of the gods so his laws and that of the
empire were both secular and religious. Same is going still in England in its caesaropapism, so we also do have secular priests...
In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
Secular implies the whole Cosmic Order of the Natural Laws as opposed to the afterlife!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cosmoscrazymonkie wrote:Of course all people grant laws legitimacy.... BUT the legitimacy is NOT based upon who does/does not uphold them.
As per the law: no one is to take justice into his own hands (jungle rule), for that goes against the common good. See?crazymonkie wrote:So what are these natural laws? Specific examples, in the Quran, please- not just platitudes or claims.
And what is the "likeness of Abraham"? Where do Muslims get this? And so- again, we come to the crux of the matter. You're talking cosmic. You're talking RELIGIOUS. Or at least metaphysical. WHERE IN ANY MODERN CONSTITUTION (not counting preambles, which are the stating of general principles, and not laws) IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF BEING RIGHT WITH A COSMIC ORDER?
We seen above how the Cosmic Order is rather secular than religious, based on length of time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_lawNatural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.....
Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
The binding order of nature is thus embedded in the Vedas' Rta/Dharma, the Koranic deen AND... the US founding documents!
Now, about the Islamic Deen/SLM & Muslim, equaling the Hindu concepts of Rta/Dharma:
viewtopic.php?p=131600#p131600
As per the Koran itself, I've asked to read Surah 57. You must understand it as similitudes of that Cosmic Order. I hope you can...
And so for the 'likeness of Abraham' or Millata, I have already discuss the matter herein:
viewtopic.php?p=131945#p131945
So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.
That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.
Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
"If your next door neighbor thinks he's a king, you do not play along with the psychotic game and call him your highness so that you can talk to him."
Anthony de Mello wrote:
Suppose somebody walks into my room one day.
I say, "Come right in. May I know who you are?"
And he says, "I am Napoleon."
And I say, "Not the Napoleon . . ."
And he says, "Precisely. Bonaparte, Emperor of France."
"What do you know!" I say, even while I'm thinking to myself, "I better handle this guy with care."
''Sit down, Your Majesty," I say.
He says, "Well, they tell me you're a pretty good spiritual director. I have a spiritual problem. I'm anxious, I'm finding it hard to trust in God. I have my armies in Russia, see, and I'm spending sleepless nights wondering how it's going to turn out."
So I say, "Well, Your Majesty, I could certainly prescribe something for that. What I suggest is that you read chapter 6 of Matthew: "Consider the lilies of the field . . . they neither toil nor spin."
By this point I'm wondering who is crazier, this guy or me.
But I go along with this lunatic.
That's what the wise guru does with you in the beginning.
He goes along with you; he takes your troubles seriously.
He'll wipe a tear or two from your eye.
You're crazy, but you don't know it yet.
The time has to come soon when he'll pull the rug out from under your feet and tell you, "Get off it, you're not Napoleon."
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.
Ahmad_Bahgat wrote: he is a dummb bum, isn't he
Good catch
Return to The Quran and Hadith
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests