Islam forbids

[Mr.Fitnah]

It stands as representing your and a small cult of heretics opinion on the matter

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem

If the argument was not logical and sound, you would have refuted it by now. Thanks...

There is nothing to refute, you lost the argument s 900 years ago.


We have already proven your cults beliefs are not traditional .
We did so using your own sources .

According to your sig link website it is not Mu'tazilis

By the end of the ninth century, Mu'tazilis were subjected to vehement attacks from the right (the traditionalists) and from the left (the atheists, deists, philosophers, non-Muslim thinkers, etc.)

 

[Kalam]

It stands as representing your and a small cult of heretics opinion on the matter

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem

If the argument was not logical and sound, you would have refuted it by now. Thanks...

Please,
We have already proven your cults beliefs are not traditional .
We did so using your own sources .

According to your sig link website it is not Mu'tazilis

By the end of the ninth century, Mu'tazilis were subjected to vehement attacks from the right (the traditionalists) and from the left (the atheists, deists, philosophers, non-Muslim thinkers, etc.)

*ahem*

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem

If the argument was not logical and sound, you would have refuted it by now. Thanks...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem

If the argument was not logical and sound, you would have refuted it by now. Thanks...

Please,
We have already proven your cults beliefs are not traditional .
We did so using your own sources .

According to your sig link website it is not Mu'tazilis

By the end of the ninth century, Mu'tazilis were subjected to vehement attacks from the right (the traditionalists) and from the left (the atheists, deists, philosophers, non-Muslim thinkers, etc.)

*ahem*

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem

If the argument was not logical and sound, you would have refuted it by now. Thanks...

There is nothing to refute, you lost the argument 900 years ago.
If your Islam were the true Islam it would be what is known as Islam today.
It isnt very few even know about your dead cult.
You just use it a lever to present a false image of Islam it is your cardboard sword.

 

[Kalam]

There is nothing to refute, you lost the argument s 900 years ago.

You have attempted to make logically fallacious arguments by appealing to the majority and using ad hominem attacks. The post was written by me; it is non-sectarian. As I said, if it wasn't both valid and sound, you would have refuted it by now.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There is nothing to refute, you lost the argument s 900 years ago.

You have attempted to make logically fallacious arguments by appealing to the majority and using ad hominem attacks. The post was written by me; it is non-sectarian. As I said, if it wasn't both valid and sound, you would have refuted it by now.

Im sorry you have mistaken recognizing historical facts,as personal attacks.
I apologize.
What you post is your opinion ,It is unsupported by any type of mainstream Islamic thought .
It has less intellectual weight than even my posts.
I can at least link to traditional recognized scholars to back up my opinion , you have to lean on untrusted sources.

 

[Kalam]

It has less intellectual weight than even my posts.

I can at least link to traditional recognized scholars to back up my opinion , you have to lean on untrusted sources.

"Untrusted sources."

Al-Suyuti
Shah Wali Ullah [1703-1762]
Abul Ala Maududi

Please, continue to spout ignorance. Continue to avoid addressing my argument. It only benefits me.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It has less intellectual weight than even my posts.

I can at least link to traditional recognized scholars to back up my opinion , you have to lean on untrusted sources.

"Untrusted sources."

Al-Suyuti
Shah Wali Ullah [1703-1762]
Abul Ala Maududi

Please, continue to spout ignorance. Continue to avoid addressing my argument. It only benefits me.

Please, what is your argument and how does it prove non muslims are innocent?

 

[Kalam]

It has less intellectual weight than even my posts.

I can at least link to traditional recognized scholars to back up my opinion , you have to lean on untrusted sources.

"Untrusted sources."

Al-Suyuti
Shah Wali Ullah [1703-1762]
Abul Ala Maududi

Please, continue to spout ignorance. Continue to avoid addressing my argument. It only benefits me.

Please, what is your argument and how does it prove non muslims are innocent?

The current discussion pertains to abrogation. I'm confident that you're capable of going back a page or two and finding the post yourself.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"Untrusted sources."

Al-Suyuti
Shah Wali Ullah [1703-1762]
Abul Ala Maududi

Please, continue to spout ignorance. Continue to avoid addressing my argument. It only benefits me.

Please, what is your argument and how does it prove non muslims are innocent?

The current discussion pertains to abrogation. I'm confident that you're capable of going back a page or two and finding the post yourself.

The abrogation discussion has been concluded

Nothing is unequivocal .

Like the abrogation of one Quranic verse by another?

It is abundantly evident that naskh occurs between separate scriptures rather than between them, though belief in internal naskh is still somewhat widespread and certainly doesn't constitute kufr.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1628053-post118.html

 

[Kalam]

The abrogation discussion has been concluded

FFS, address the argument or admit that you can't. Quit being a pussy.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The abrogation discussion has been concluded

FFS, address the argument or admit that you can't. Quit being a pussy.

Argumentum ad hominem, You present an argument that is is simply not traditional Islam ,a heretical view a deliberate distraction . To follow it requires a degree of brain damage that it beyond the pale of reason .
If what you believed were even worth a foot note it would be noted .
every traditional interpretation is in agreement with accept ion of yours, yours is a contrived interpretation to promote a lie, What is known as" retcon" retroactive continuity That is all.


You want to be right ?
Get the universities to agree with you.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What you miss "kalam " I want you to be right, you just have to be able to prove that you are right .
So far... nothing.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What you miss "kalam " I want you to be right, you just have to be able to prove that you are right .
So far... nothing.

 

[Kalam]

The abrogation discussion has been concluded

FFS, address the argument or admit that you can't. Quit being a pussy.

Argumentum ad hominem, You present an argument that is is simply not traditional Islam ,a heretical view a deliberate distraction . To follow it requires a degree of brain damage that it beyond the pale of reason .
If what you believed were even worth a foot note it would be noted .
every traditional interpretation is in agreement with accept ion of yours, yours is a contrived interpretation to promote a lie, What is known as" retcon" retroactive continuity That is all.


You want to be right ?
Get the universities to agree with you.

You fail to grasp even the most basic aspects of logic. Whether or not an argument is correct is determined by its validity and soundness. You have done nothing in the way of addressing the substance of my post. You dodge and lamely call my posts "lies" without disproving them. Once again, address the argument. Quit being a pussy.

 

[Kalam]

What you miss "kalam " I want you to be right, you just have to be able to prove that you are right .
So far... nothing.

Blow it out your ass, liar.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Your "arguments" are illogical from the beginning period.
The are unfounded and irrational , It is beyond the pale of reason to attach validity to an obvious lie.

I'm sorry logic cannot be extended to that point.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

what you miss "kalam " i want you to be right, you just have to be able to prove that you are right .
So far... Nothing.

blow it out your ass, liar.

qfp

 

[Kalam]

Your "arguments" are illogical from the beginning period.

Please prove that the argument is illogical.

The are unfounded and irrational

Please prove that the argument is unfounded and irrational.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What you miss "kalam " I want you to be right, you just have to be able to prove that you are right .
So far... nothing.

Blow it out your ass, liar.

I'm sorry that is not proof,
Please provide ,unequivocal proof non muslims are innocent according to islamic scripture.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Your "arguments" are illogical from the beginning period.

Please prove that the argument is illogical.

The are unfounded and irrational

Please prove that the argument is unfounded and irrational.

We will no get involveled in disproving the illogic of lies or how they are irrational .

Your interpretation of Islam is considered heretical , that will do.
That you had to change you signature link will suffice.
We will not indulge in distractions diversions and nonsense .

We will not play along,


this thread is for proving non Muslims are innocent according to islamic scripture.
PERIOD

Many muslims like to say " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people "


Have you heard that?

Now ,Please prove non muslims are innocent according to Islamic scripture.

If it is true just do it.