(March 17, 2016 at 10:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: After having read #376, the real bad news is that you have no notion what cherry picking means, and have chosen this complaint because it superficially implies that I am guilty of a fault.  I am not.  And my arguments pointing out the flaws in your claim of "no errors" stands unrefuted.  Picking points from anti-Islam sites is only a flaw if those sites actually misrepresent the Quran.  So far you have a claim they do, and nothing else.  There were literally dozens upon dozens of things linked to in my post.  You didn't bother to examine any of them.  You simply reasserted your dogma about the Quran not having any errors in it.  That doesn't feed the bulldog, I'm afraid.  Your claim that I was guilty of "cherry picking" as a flaw is an unsupported red herring.

Unless you want to be guilty of a fallacy yourself, you'll have to support your reasoning with more than dogma.  Here, start on this:

You do not know what is cherry picking because if you had the idea of what it is you would never had offered me a false argument again. You should first learn about cherry picking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Now coming to your argument whether “Mary was the sister Aaron” or not.

“At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!”
"O SISTER OF AARON! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

Maryam (19)
-Verses 27 & 28-

Please consider the following verses from Bible.

“And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, [Thou] SON OF DAVID, have mercy on us.”
(Matt 9:27 [KJV])

“And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, [thou] SON OF DAVID.”
(Matt 20:30 [KJV])

“And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, [thou] SON OF DAVID, have mercy on me.”
(Mark 10:47 [KJV])

If you say Mary (mother of Jesus) cannot be the sister of Aaron and Jesus cannot be the son of David that means both Quran and bible have historical errors and therefore both scriptures are eligible for condemnation. However, to your surprise both Bible and Quran are correct in this particular case and you are wrong.

People of Israel were used to call each other by either their last names, or by adding words such as you "Son of..." or "Brother of...." or "Sister of...." By this act they usually affiliate people to some honourable dynasty. When they called each other by using the expression like “O Son of....” or “O Sister of…” they did not count them to be the actual son or actual sister.

Perhaps you have heard sometimes close friends use brother or sister for each other. This is only a way how people show their affections to each other or use these terms as a sign of respect to each other.

Propaganda sites are creating these type of arguments by hiding real facts specially to compel ignorant people to act against Islam.

(March 18, 2016 at 7:32 am)Harris Wrote: Why there is no army of women who could fight with the army of men?
Why man and woman do not have boxing matches?

Why are there no men who can bear children?
Why are there so few women who start wars?

Do you really think that belligerence is superiority? I think the fact that many men believe this to be true is definitive proof that not only are men not equal to women, they are inferior when it comes to the administration of a peaceful and civilized society.

(March 18, 2016 at 7:32 am)Harris Wrote: Why there is no army of women who could fight with the army of men?

Tell that to the PKK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pictureg...-Iraq.html

(March 18, 2016 at 7:39 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 7:32 am)Harris Wrote: Why there is no army of women who could fight with the army of men?
Why man and woman do not have boxing matches?

Why are there no men who can bear children?
Why are there so few women who start wars?

Do you really think that belligerence is superiority?  I think the fact that many men believe this to be true is definitive proof that not only are men not equal to women, they are inferior when it comes to the administration of a peaceful and civilized society.

I am saying exactly the same thing. You have said it in a more compelling manner. To highlight this fact I have specially used the phrase:

"Islam is not treating woman as inferior to man but asking both man and woman to respect their natural limits by not crossing them."

(March 18, 2016 at 7:47 am)Harris Wrote: "Islam is not treating woman as inferior to man but asking both man and woman to respect their natural limits by not crossing them."

Your use of the word "limits" is very telling.

Maybe you should use the word "preferences" or "skills".

For example, I have known plenty of women who could beat up a man using martial arts. People adapt to their own particular skills. So men with more upper body strength often hold their ground and slug it out whereas women can be more flexible and faster, hitting their opponent in unexpected ways. The same goes for men who are of a more slender build. And women who have a heavy build are more likely to fight like men.

Referring to boxing matches is disingenuous because there you are limiting your sample to the very top athletes, rather than using a cross sample of the population. But by saying "respect their natural limits by not crossing them" you are arguing that there is a clear cut off between the two genders when there is only a tendency for them to have certain characteristics.

(March 18, 2016 at 7:59 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 7:47 am)Harris Wrote: "Islam is not treating woman as inferior to man but asking both man and woman to respect their natural limits by not crossing them."

Your use of the word "limits" is very telling.

Why? Harris for example should respect his natural limits and leave thinking and important policy decisions to others.

(March 18, 2016 at 7:32 am)Harris Wrote:

(March 17, 2016 at 8:28 am)little_monkey Wrote: But some of those "naive girls" in my classes were smarter and wiser than you will ever be. Nice try to insult me, when you are being totally ridiculous. 


No, you didn't, but that doesn't distract from the fact that in your religion you consider women as inferior to men.


There was no connection, it's just you misinterpreting my post. What's unacceptable is that your religion wants to go back to the 7th century, when women were at the mercy of a man's whim.


I will reiterate: the point I made was not about women being able to work or not, but they are treated as inferior.


She's not obliged but she is still treated as an inferior. And as I said before, if your beliefs comes from a book that you consider as inerrant, then those beliefs will lead you and all those Muslims who believe like you do to a perpetual war with the West. Your values are irreconcilable with Western values.

If I agree with you that woman is not inferior to man, then how would you answer to the following questions:

Why there is no army of women who could fight with the army of men?
Why man and woman do not have boxing matches?

There are countries in which women are joining the men to fight along in any combat situation.

The reason that in sports, we have separate leagues for men and women is to recognize that men have stronger muscles. That in no way makes men superior to women. 

Quote:Woman is inferior to man but equal in human rights.

That is totally illogical.  It is this kind of illogical reasoning that leads to such situations that a woman cannot leave her house without being accompanied by a male of the family. It leads to honor killing, where even if a woman was raped - meaning was forced into sex - she will be killed by a member of her own family, it leads to woman's obligation covered their faces in public, otherwise she can be physically beaten. Where women have been allowed to do more than what Islam permits is in countries that were once a colony of the Western world, and have governments that have embraced some Western values, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey. The danger is that these countries are moving more and more towards Islamisation, and whatever Western values are still present, they are being eroded. Just look at Turkey. I visited that country before the Islamic party took control. Women were as free as men then because the government was secular, but since the election of Erdogan, things have changed for the worse for women. 

Quote:About 70% - 80% people who are accepting Islam in Europe and in USA are women. Do you think they are stupid because they want to live a life of inferior person?

I don't know where you get these figures, but even if they're true, this is happening in countries in which secular governments are in place, with freedom rights protected by the constitution, and so Sharia law doesn't have a chance to be the law of the land - though in some communities, Sharia law is practiced covertly, predominantly in the UK. But in Islamic countries, where the rights of individual is non-existing, the fate of those women are deplorable. 

Your points are spot on, however I'd just like to add the following clarification for any stupid people who may be among us. The official Government position on Sharia law over here is that it is not recognised as a legal system and in such cases where it is found to be practiced, UK law takes precedence every time.

(March 18, 2016 at 7:34 am)Harris Wrote: People of Israel were used to call each other by either their last names, or by adding words such as you "Son of..." or "Brother of...." or "Sister of...." By this act they usually affiliate people to some honourable dynasty. When they called each other by using the expression like “O Son of....” or “O Sister of…” they did not count them to be the actual son or actual sister.

Ahahaha. The old "it's only a metaphor" excuse. Except that this doesn't make any sense of surah 3:35-37 in which Mary's mother was called the wife of Imran. It's clearly a literal reference.

(March 18, 2016 at 10:59 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 7:32 am)Harris Wrote: If I agree with you that woman is not inferior to man, then how would you answer to the following questions:

Why there is no army of women who could fight with the army of men?
Why man and woman do not have boxing matches?

There are countries in which women are joining the men to fight along in any combat situation.

The reason that in sports, we have separate leagues for men and women is to recognize that men have stronger muscles. That in no way makes men superior to women. 

Quote:Woman is inferior to man but equal in human rights.

That is totally illogical.  It is this kind of illogical reasoning that leads to such situations that a woman cannot leave her house without being accompanied by a male of the family. It leads to honor killing, where even if a woman was raped - meaning was forced into sex - she will be killed by a member of her own family, it leads to woman's obligation covered their faces in public, otherwise she can be physically beaten. Where women have been allowed to do more than what Islam permits is in countries that were once a colony of the Western world, and have governments that have embraced some Western values, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey. The danger is that these countries are moving more and more towards Islamisation, and whatever Western values are still present, they are being eroded. Just look at Turkey. I visited that country before the Islamic party took control. Women were as free as men then because the government was secular, but since the election of Erdogan, things have changed for the worse for women. 

Quote:About 70% - 80% people who are accepting Islam in Europe and in USA are women. Do you think they are stupid because they want to live a life of inferior person?

I don't know where you get these figures, but even if they're true, this is happening in countries in which secular governments are in place, with freedom rights protected by the constitution, and so Sharia law doesn't have a chance to be the law of the land - though in some communities, Sharia law is practiced covertly, predominantly in the UK. But in Islamic countries, where the rights of individual is non-existing, the fate of those women are deplorable. 

Look Mr. Professor, you are now provoking me for a cheap dirty fight and that is not the way how professors behave. I can give you hundreds of links that are sufficient to prove horrendous facts about how nasty are the men in modern cultures who beat so ruthlessly their wives, mistresses, and girlfriends that in many cases that brutality ends up in the death of victims. That ruthlessness is so shocking that no Hollywood made Taliban is capable to compete that.

Up so far you have attacked me by using unjust and dishonest arguments of the crooks and in my defence I only showed you the actuality by showing you your mistakes.

Think only logically, if Islam is really the religion how you have depicted it then why people are accepting it in Europe and in America. Do modern cultures hold mindless people who are fond of chasing all that crazy stuff to adopt it knowingly for their lifestyles? Do you think any person who may adopt lifestyle that is full of violence can live calm and neutral life anywhere in the world? You are talking only vanities.