Converts from Islam

[planten]

no. but i do have news articles like this:

**Saudis Quietly Promote Strict Islam in Indonesia **

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E1DB1F3AF936A35754C0A9659C8B63

Saudi Arabia symbolizes Islam when taken all these factors together:

1. It is the guardian of Mecca & Medina. Islam’s holiest sites.
2. It is the birthplace of Islam.
3. It is the originator of the Islamic language…arabic
4. It is the single most influencial voice in the muslim world
5. The country is an Islamic Theocracy.
6. Muslims do not collectively complain about their policies.

While discussing saudi Arabia, it would be better to keep in mind the Vatican since 400 A.D.

There is no harm in saudis funding and helping the poor Muslims of the world as long they do not preach violence in the name of religion. But who listens and who can control or teach the Saudis ! Impossible.

 

[ralphinal]

While discussing saudi Arabia, it would be better to keep in mind the Vatican since 400 A.D.

Not sure I understand

There is no harm in saudis funding and helping the poor Muslims of the world as long they do not preach violence in the name of religion. But who listens and who can control or teach the Saudis ! Impossible.

I totally agree with this. Who can controll them?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

no. but i do have news articles like this:

**Saudis Quietly Promote Strict Islam in Indonesia **

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E1DB1F3AF936A35754C0A9659C8B63

You said that Saudi Arabia was the primary funder of Islamic schools world wide, where did you get that? Is it actual fact or just an intuitive guess?

Saudi Arabia symbolizes Islam when taken all these factors together:

1. It is the guardian of Mecca & Medina. Islam’s holiest sites.
2. It is the birthplace of Islam.
3. It is the originator of the Islamic language…arabic
4. It is the single most influencial voice in the muslim world
5. The country is an Islamic Theocracy.
6. Muslims quietly submits to their authority and their policies.

Setting aside how flimsy that reasoning that is, I will point out that I did not ask you to give a series of propositions about Saudi Arabia, I asked for any B, what is it for A to be symbolic of/for B

I suspect you did not adress that because this is a clearly non-sensical argument, why you maintain it I do not know, there is no shame in makeing a silly off hand comment, it just get’s rediculious when you bulldogedly defend it and continue to try and maintain such a silly argument.

 

[Reuben_J]

AgnosTheist what is your opinion on American treason laws? What do you think is the appropriate punishment for treason?

Unless I miss something … American treason laws are **human made law **with punishment derived from the same.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Saudi Arabia is NOT, absolutely NOT an Islamic theocracy. It’s a monarchy! The government is a ruling dynasty–the family of Saud! It has 14 proinces which have a governor appointed by the king.

People who say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy really don’t know the meaning of Islamic, Theocracy, or anything about the KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia.

Puhleeze.

 

[Reuben_J]

Saudi Arabia is NOT, absolutely NOT an Islamic theocracy. It’s a monarchy! The government is a ruling dynasty–the family of Saud! It has 14 proinces which have a governor appointed by the king.

People who say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy really don’t know the meaning of Islamic, Theocracy, or anything about the KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia.

Puhleeze.

What law is Saudi Arabia’s government based on?

 

[AgnosTheist]

You said that Saudi Arabia was the primary funder of Islamic schools world wide, where did you get that? Is it actual fact or just an intuitive guess?

An Educated Guess. You do know what that means, right?

Setting aside how flimsy that reasoning that is, I will point out that I did not ask you to give a series of propositions about Saudi Arabia, I asked for any B, what is it for A to be symbolic of/for B

you asked “What is it for a A to be “symbolic” or “stand for” B?” For A to be symbolic of B, you need X. And X stands for all those factors I mentioned. Apparently you cant even understand the question that you have concocted yourself. ehehehe.

try and maintain such a silly argument.

you wish. i think youre being silly too. anyway, thanks for the laugh!

 

[AgnosTheist]

You said that Saudi Arabia was the primary funder of Islamic schools world wide, where did you get that? Is it actual fact or just an intuitive guess?

An Educated Guess.

Setting aside how flimsy that reasoning that is, I will point out that I did not ask you to give a series of propositions about Saudi Arabia, I asked for any B, what is it for A to be symbolic of/for B

you asked “What is it for a A to be “symbolic” or “stand for” B?” For A to be symbolic of B, you need X. And X stands for all those factors I mentioned. Apparently you concocted a question that you yourself dont understand. ehehehe.

try and maintain such a silly argument.

you wish. i think youre being silly too. anyway, thanks for the laugh!

 

[AgnosTheist]

You said that Saudi Arabia was the primary funder of Islamic schools world wide, where did you get that? Is it actual fact or just an intuitive guess?

An Educated Guess.

Setting aside how flimsy that reasoning that is, I will point out that I did not ask you to give a series of propositions about Saudi Arabia, I asked for any B, what is it for A to be symbolic of/for B

you asked “What is it for a A to be “symbolic” or “stand for” B?” For A to be symbolic of B, you need X. And X stands for all those factors I mentioned. Apparently you concocted a question that you yourself dont understand. ehehehe.

try and maintain such a silly argument.

you wish. i think youre being silly too. anyway, thanks for the laugh!

 

[AgnosTheist]

Saudi Arabia is NOT, absolutely NOT an Islamic theocracy. It’s a monarchy! The government is a ruling dynasty–the family of Saud! It has 14 proinces which have a governor appointed by the king.

People who say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy really don’t know the meaning of Islamic, Theocracy, or anything about the KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia.

Puhleeze.

FYI:

**the·oc·ra·cy **

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy

And it is Islamic because the country is governed by Islam’s Sharia Laws.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

An Educated Guess.

What was the data that gave grounds for this guess being “educated”

you asked “What is it for a A to be “symbolic” or “stand for” B?” For A to be symbolic of B, you need X. And X stands for all those factors I mentioned. Apparently you concocted a question that you yourself dont understand. ehehehe.

No, I can’t tell if you really don’t understand why that’s not an adequate response or if you are simply being evasive

you wish. i think youre being silly too. anyway, thanks for the laugh!

Well, if you think that your above response was a good one then it may well be that you are logically confused enough that my responses seem silly, if not then I don’t know why you persist down this line.

For me to ask you an abstraction, simply answering that question with a variable does not suffice, I am asking you for any A, what is it for A to be symbolic for B. You have responded with a specific constant.

If your response were adequate it would be correct for any instantiation, your constant, which refers to spefici factors relating to Saudi Arabia, clearly cannot meet that.

What is it for A to be symbolic of B,

“well, it must be the protector of Mecca, a Muslim Theocray etc”

Do you see why that dosen’t work?

I’m not asking why is Saudi Arabia symbolic of Islam, I’m asking what is it for anything to be symbolic of something.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What was the data that gave grounds for this guess being “educated”

1. the fact that saudi arabia is a very wealthy country.
2. the fact that saudi arabia promotes islam.
3. numerous reports of saudi funding of madrassas like the one I showed you.
4. the absence of any other large scale muslim organizations that funds madrassas on a large scale similar to what the sauds do.

No, I can’t tell if you really don’t understand why that’s not an adequate response

I dont understand why its not adequate. Its your job to explain why its not. Afterall thats what discussions are for.

If your response were adequate it would be correct for any instantiation, your constant, which refers to spefici factors relating to Saudi Arabia, clearly cannot meet that.

What is it for A to be symbolic of B,

“well, it must be the protector of Mecca, a Muslim Theocray etc”

Do you see why that dosen’t work?

no, why?

I’m not asking why is Saudi Arabia symbolic of Islam, I’m asking what is it for anything to be symbolic of something.

perhaps you can better explain if you can show me some definite examples.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

1. the fact that saudi arabia is a very wealthy country.
2. the fact that saudi arabia promotes islam.
3. numerous reports of saudi funding of madrassas like the one I showed you.
4. the absence of any other large scale muslim organizations that funds madrassas on a large scale similar to what the sauds do.

I dont understand why its not adequate. Its your job to explain why its not. Afterall thats what discussions are for.

no, why?

perhaps you can better explain if you can show me some definite examples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

Look at Leibniz’s law for what it is for X to be identical with Y

“That is, entities x and y are identical if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa.”

That law will work for any instantiation of x or y, If you claimed that H2O is identical with water, you could cite this, claiming that all predicates posessed by water are posessed by H2o

However if I asked what is it for X to be identical with Y, and you said it must have the same proportions of elements, that may or may not be true for water and H2o, but would not work to answer the question what is it for X to be identical with Y, because if I substituted Set Theory for X and Logc for Y, this would clearly not make sense as neither are physical things and are not composed of elements,

you have given a specific instance, not a general popperty/law, which cannot be a sufficient answer to the question, what is it for A to be symbolic for B.

 

[AgnosTheist]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

Look at Leibniz’s law for what it is for X to be identical with Y

“That is, entities x and y are identical if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa.”

That law will work for any instantiation of x or y, If you claimed that H2O is identical with water, you could cite this, claiming that all predicates posessed by water are posessed by H2o

My friend, I am talking about a SYMBOL. Symbols are never the exact/identical replica of the things they stand for. Like the Cross is the symbol of Christianity. The Crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. The Flag is the symbol of a nation. Are these things identical to thing it partners with? NO! A thing becomes a symbol when it had a historical or an intimate relationship with another thing.

 

[DDClark]

Not really. I am living in a society in which it is very difficult if not impossible for me to abstain from doing something which is in fact forbidden in my religion–dealing with interest. So I choose to not live in such a culture. People are ALWAYS subject to a certain law. Here I am subject to American law and I’m forced to follow it instead, even if I disagree with it.

Always??? Please.

What do your know about the Amish, Amy? If you don’t know anything about their way of life, you’d benefit from the research and knowledge.

 

[AgnosTheist]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

Look at Leibniz’s law for what it is for X to be identical with Y

“That is, entities x and y are identical if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa.”

That law will work for any instantiation of x or y, If you claimed that H2O is identical with water, you could cite this, claiming that all predicates posessed by water are posessed by H2o

My friend, I am talking about a SYMBOL. Symbols are never the exact/identical replica of the things they stand for. Like the Cross is the symbol of Christianity. The Crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. The Flag is the symbol of a nation. Are these things identical to things they partner with? NO! A thing becomes a symbol when it had a historical or an intimate relationship with another thing.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And it is Islamic because the country is governed by Islam’s Sharia Laws.

But it’s not. I thought you had been paying attention. Clearly it’s not governed by Shari’a Law, not comprehensively. Using half shari’ah law and half something else does not make it shari’ah law. It makes it something else. You can’t dilute the truth and consider it the same.

The KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy, it’s a monarchy. While in cases where the monarchy is not involved, some judges are free to implement Shari’ah law. Many times they don’t even when they should. When the ruling family is involved, Shari’ah goes out the window.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

My friend, I am talking about a SYMBOL. Symbols are never the exact/identical replica of the things they stand for. Like the Cross is the symbol of Christianity. The Crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. The Flag is the symbol of a nation. Are these things identical to things they partner with? NO! A thing becomes a symbol when it had a historical or an intimate relationship with another thing.

I was not saying that symbol and identy are the same, I was showing you any example of Leibnez’s definition of Identity, which is appliciable in any case where identity is questioned, versus your definition of symbol, which is specific to your claim about Saudi Arabia and Islam, now, your last line “A thing becomes a symbol when it had a historical or an intimate relationship with another thing” is what I am asking for.

Do you see the difference?

The problem is, that either your definition is wrong, or your claim that Saudia Arabia is THE modern symbol for Islam is false as any number of things meet that criteria.

My muslim friends come from historicaly Muslim famlies, their famlies have a historic and intimate relationship with Islam, would they, in your oppinion, be symbolic of Islam?

How about Bosnia?

 

[Reuben_J]

But it’s not. I thought you had been paying attention. Clearly it’s not governed by Shari’a Law, not comprehensively. Using half shari’ah law and half something else does not make it shari’ah law. It makes it something else. You can’t dilute the truth and consider it the same.

The KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy, it’s a monarchy. While in cases where the monarchy is not involved, some judges are free to implement Shari’ah law. Many times they don’t even when they should. When the ruling family is involved, Shari’ah goes out the window.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, its judicial system is based on Islamic law (Shari’ah). The King is at the top of the legal system. He acts as the final court of appeal and can issue pardons. There are also courts in the Kingdom. The largest are the Shari’ah Courts, which hear most cases in the Saudi legal system.

Background:

Since the beginning of the first Saudi state in the 18th century through the founding of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the late King Abdulaziz bin Abdelrahman Al-Saud on September 23, 1932, Shari’ah (Islamic law) has been the pillar and source of Saudi Arabia’s basic system of government. It identifies the nature of the state and its goals and responsibilities, as well as the relationship between the government and its citizens.

saudiembassy.net/Country/Government/Gov.asp

You can say whatever you like, but the Saudi certainly says differently.

If the government is not working as you say it is, maybe it’s because Islamic law does not work, not viable and impractical. Humans cannot execute what’s belong to God.

 

[AgnosTheist]

your last line “A thing becomes a symbol when it had a historical or an intimate relationship with another thing” is what I am asking for.

thats exactly what i gave you, saudi arabia being the birth place of islam, the orignator of arabic and the location of islam’s 2 most holy sites, plus the fact that every muslim for 1400 years is/was advised to take pilgrimage in mecca through Arabia.