Al-Taqiyya

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Al-Taqiyya

Post #1

Post by sawthelight »

How does a religion that spreads a message of supposed truth allow itself to use lies?

Why would allah allow lying if his words and religion are indeed truthful? This is a contradiction as well as self-diminishing to a supposed truthful god.
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment (Quran 16:106)
So basically here any muslim can lie to save themselves from death for being a muslim. So allah will let his own people disown him verbally as a lie to allow his muslims to save their own skin because the religion is filled with strength in being true? or being in deceitful?

What is troubling is there are loads of other taqiyya verses littered throughout the quran.

If islam really is a religion that is true, then there is nothing to fear but allah. For allah would hold judgement for everyone regardless if they are Ghengas Khan (who supposedly muslims trembled in fear of) or Hitler. Why would allah allow his muslims to fear other men if allah's religion is indeed the true and powerful religion? Is it a strength of character to lie or rather speak the truth? Is it better to be brave or to be a coward? Is it really considered brave to have the guts to lie so you can cling unto your life? Is that really commendable? How could the coward be venerated in allah's eyes when allah speaks the supposed truth but his follower doesn't? How do these two match in value and belief system? Can any muslim say that it does?

It even seems to me in the verse above, allah is in fact telling his followers to fear mortal beings along side allah. So therefore they should lie to keep their lives because they must fear other mortals who will take their lives.

However, this suddenly goes against quran 3:175:
“…so fear them not, but fear Me, if you are (true) believers…"
Here we have a contradiction. Here, muslims should only fear god and not other mortals. But lying is an indication of being fearful for your life in the hands of another mortal rather than being brave and true to allah's cause.

And the fact is the liar cannot be the true believer because he fears other men rather than allah alone. However, the two verses contradict each other anyways so it also seems allah is not truthful.

Any corrections?

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Al-Taqiyya

Post #51

Post by Al-Fatihah »

intheabyss wrote:
Al-Fatihah wrote:Response: It does not say do not fear others. Your pathetic lie is laughable. Itt says as you quoted "fear Allah only". You are making the argument that "fear Allah only" means "not allowed" to fear others. NO IT DOES NOT. That's sheer idiocy. Words ha be to be synonyms to mean the same. No word in the following phrase " Fear only Allah" is a synonym for "not allowed". So you LOSE.
Now the more you keep saying it you only embarrass yourself more by showing the inability to comprehend simple basic English. So there is no contradiction. Debunked as usual. Try again.
Like I said, I am paraphrasing. I too can reciprocate what you're dishing out on me. How about this, IT DOES NOT IN FACT SAY WORD FOR WORD IN quran:
Al-Fatihah wrote:"Therefore, the verse is conditional and says to fear Allah only in order to defeat the enemy"(POST 43)
anywhere in the quran as you put it in post 43. NO WHERE IN UR quran DOES IT SAY THAT! HOW RISIBLE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE!

Word for word your words do not match ur quran as my words do not match ur quran word for word. That's called paraphrasing! You're obviously paraphrasing your verses as am I. So what, I'm not allowed to paraphrase? You shouldn't either then. But hey you already did so that would be hypocritical of you to say I shouldn't paraphrase. However you have paraphrased so much of the quran already up to this point and claimed that I should not paraphrase that you really have been hypocritical all this time.

Still, it is another weak argument made. In fact, you keep making superficial arguments. Even when you said I was impotent and ran from the truth because of what you said but still I am here debating you. Very superficial insight you brought there.

And yeah you're not allowed to fear others but allah if you are a true believer according to surah 3:175. Or are you allowed to fear others? Hmm?

Answer that. Are you allowed to fear others besides allah?
Response: Amusing. The sad and weak rebuttals continue. You think that people won't see your lies. My argument is that neither the words, OR ITS SYNONYM, is mentioned for "not allowed" in the verse. Again , NOR ITS SYNONYM. Therefore, there is no contradiction. So what do you do, as usual you make a strawman and claim my argument is for it to be word for word and ignore that I said or its synonym as well. Your lie fails. Debunked.

Further, I don't have to quote word for word or it's synonym because My argument is that the meaning is based on CONTEXT. So all I have to show is that the verse is conditional, which was proven by the fact that the word "only" does not mean or refer to "not allowed". Therefore, the verse is conditional and proves that verse 3:175 means to fear only Allah in order to defeat the enemy according to context. Debunked again.

Whereas, you ARE NOT using context and saying that what the verse of the words LITERALLY mean. Therefore, you do have to provide word for word or its synonym, and since you cannot provide the words "not allowed" or its synonym, then you have no logical basis to claim or draw such a meaning from the verse. Debunked as usual. Try again.

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Re: Al-Taqiyya

Post #52

Post by sawthelight »

Al-Fatihah wrote: So what do you do, as usual you make a strawman and claim my argument is for it to be word for word and ignore that I said or its synonym as well. Your lie fails. Debunked.
So when you point out I'm not paraphrasing quran word for word you call me an idiot. When I point out your not paraphrasing quran word for word you agree to this. So why don't you paraphrase quran word for word then? Not to do so would be idiocy according to you. Oh wait that means you're a hypocrite and showing your idiocy for not doing so but telling others to do so.

Here's what you said:
Al-Fatihah wrote:Response: It does not say do not fear others. Your pathetic lie is laughable. Itt says as you quoted "fear Allah only". You are making the argument that "fear Allah only" means "not allowed" to fear others. NO IT DOES NOT. That's sheer idiocy. Words ha be to be synonyms to mean the same. No word in the following phrase " Fear only Allah" is a synonym for "not allowed". So you LOSE.
You clearly show that I should be paraphrasing quran word for word. You too should paraphrase it word for word. Don't be hypocritical.

You agree with me as you should fear only allah according to your verse. You shouldn't fear others. Hey you said it yourself:
Al-Fatihah wrote:Further, I don't have to quote word for word or it's synonym because My argument is that the meaning is based on CONTEXT. So all I have to show is that the verse is conditional, which was proven by the fact that the word "only" does not mean or refer to "not allowed". Therefore, the verse is conditional and proves that verse 3:175 means to fear only Allah in order to defeat the enemy according to context. Debunked again.
Let me see. To fear only allah means you can fear others? That is allowed? You still have not answered the question.

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Al-Taqiyya

Post #53

Post by Al-Fatihah »

intheabyss wrote:
So when you point out I'm not paraphrasing quran word for word you call me an idiot. When I point out your not paraphrasing quran word for word you agree to this. So why don't you paraphrase quran word for word then? Not to do so would be idiocy according to you. Oh wait that means you're a hypocrite and showing your idiocy for not doing so but telling others to do so.

Here's what you said:
Al-Fatihah wrote:Response: It does not say do not fear others. Your pathetic lie is laughable. Itt says as you quoted "fear Allah only". You are making the argument that "fear Allah only" means "not allowed" to fear others. NO IT DOES NOT. That's sheer idiocy. Words ha be to be synonyms to mean the same. No word in the following phrase " Fear only Allah" is a synonym for "not allowed". So you LOSE.
You clearly show that I should be paraphrasing quran word for word. You too should paraphrase it word for word. Don't be hypocritical.

You agree with me as you should fear only allah according to your verse. You shouldn't fear others. Hey you said it yourself:
Al-Fatihah wrote:Further, I don't have to quote word for word or it's synonym because My argument is that the meaning is based on CONTEXT. So all I have to show is that the verse is conditional, which was proven by the fact that the word "only" does not mean or refer to "not allowed". Therefore, the verse is conditional and proves that verse 3:175 means to fear only Allah in order to defeat the enemy according to context. Debunked again.
Let me see. To fear only allah means you can fear others? That is allowed? You still have not answered the question.
Response: Your apparent idiocy has no end. Hypocrisy is claiming for there to be one standard to do the SAME thing, then doing it different yourself. The standard for context is not the same as the standard for deriving meaning from the words directly in question.They are DIFFERENT. Not the same. Therefore, that's not hypocrisy. That's applying the appropriate standard . So the verse still has no contradiction. Debunked as usual.

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Re: Al-Taqiyya

Post #54

Post by sawthelight »

Al-Fatihah wrote:
Response: You show fear to only Allah by defeating the enemy, as been said to you repeatedly. Therefore, there is clearly no contradiction since the statement I just said to you says to fear Allah only to defeat the enemy. That's an exception. Not a contradiction.
So are you allowed to fear others? You have still not answered the question.

And since you seem unable to do so. It means I'm correct and your wrong.

In other words, to fear only allah means not to fear others. It means to fear others is NOT ALLOWED! You seriously don't see the connection or you willingly force yourself to reject your book? You really are a waste of time now.

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Re: Al-Taqiyya

Post #55

Post by sawthelight »

Al-Fatihah wrote:The standard for context is not the same as the standard for deriving meaning from the words directly in question.They are DIFFERENT. Not the same.
That's actually the same thing. Apples and oranges are still fruit. You're just being very verbose here.
Last edited by sawthelight on Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Post #56

Post by sawthelight »

Alright. Well seeing how you keep making weak arguments I'm going to make this short. Here is a summary of all the weak frail arguments you made as my gift to you:


- You say I make a strawman argument for saying surah 3 and 16 are titled 'family' and 'bees.' These in fact are the correct titles of the surahs. Very unintelligent of you to condemn me. (POST 7)

- You said I was running off from your supposed truth and had no impotence to rebut you in post 16. Yet here we are on post 56 showing you how impotent and superficial your claim was. (POST 16)

- You say verse 3:175 can be generally or conditionally taken. Then you change your mind to say it is not to be taken generally at all. A contradiction. An unwillingness to be accountable for your own words. (POST 34 VS 38)

- You point out the word "SO" is a conjunction that is CONDITIONAL. Yes we all know that. It is conditional, to two words connecting together. That is it's role. To point that out to me was really redundant. Your just being too wordy here. (POST 47)

- You say that you should fear only allah according to your quran but fail to see the connection you cannot fear others according to your quran. Therefore, you're not allowed to fear others according to allah. But you fail to see that connection and you purport "NOT ALLOWED" was never mentioned. What a lack of insight you have. (POST 49)

- You demand me to paraphrase your quran word for word for me to make my point. Then I ask you to do so, but you don't. And then you condemn me. Evidence of your hypocrisy. (POST 49 VS 51)

- Still you cannot answer my question in a simple manner: are you "allowed" to fear allah then? Instead of answering my question you resort to another wordy explanation which dodges the question. Yet you keep clamoring that it never said your "not allowed" to fear others in quran. So are you allowed to fear others then? Still on numerous occasions you cannot answer to your own blunder. Evidence of subterfuge. (POST 50, 53, and 54)

- Lastly, You claim "The standard for context is not the same as the standard for deriving meaning from the words directly in question.They are DIFFERENT. Not the same." Which I showed you are essentially the same thing. A very irrational and verbose argument to make. (POST 53)


All these weak arguments keep piling up. How much more of this nonsense do I have to take?

To sum it all up: unintelligent, superficial, unaccountable, verbose, lacking insight, hypocritical, subterfuge, and irrational your arguments were.

And to rebut all my arguments you mostly rely on one liners - like that explains everything. As if your words are omnipotent or something. Perhaps you delude yourself to be a god? It more or less indicates your slothful efforts to explain your religion.

I think it is fair to say that speaking more with you on the matter only makes things much more stupid than it should be. To engage in more stupidity is abundantly foolish.

However, this proves that your arguments fall short and are to be irrelevant. It shows that my understanding of Taqiyya is correct. I mean after all those weak arguments you made, how could anyone believe you? This proves that taqiyya shows that islam is not a religion of truth but of weak frail explanations. Thank you.

Happy new years. That's my gift to you.

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Al-Taqiyya

Post #57

Post by Al-Fatihah »

deleted
Last edited by Al-Fatihah on Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Post #58

Post by Al-Fatihah »

intheabyss wrote: Alright. Well seeing how you keep making weak arguments I'm going to make this short. Here is a summary of all the weak frail arguments you made as my gift to you:


- You say I make a strawman argument for saying surah 3 and 16 are titled 'family' and 'bees.' These in fact are the correct titles of the surahs. Very unintelligent of you to condemn me. (POST 7)

- You said I was running off from your supposed truth and had no impotence to rebut you in post 16. Yet here we are on post 56 showing you how impotent and superficial your claim was. (POST 16)

- You say verse 3:175 can be generally or conditionally taken. Then you change your mind to say it is not to be taken generally at all. A contradiction. An unwillingness to be accountable for your own words. (POST 34 VS 38)

- You point out the word "SO" is a conjunction that is CONDITIONAL. Yes we all know that. It is conditional, to two words connecting together. That is it's role. To point that out to me was really redundant. Your just being too wordy here. (POST 47)

- You say that you should fear only allah according to your quran but fail to see the connection you cannot fear others according to your quran. Therefore, you're not allowed to fear others according to allah. But you fail to see that connection and you purport "NOT ALLOWED" was never mentioned. What a lack of insight you have. (POST 49)

- You demand me to paraphrase your quran word for word for me to make my point. Then I ask you to do so, but you don't. And then you condemn me. Evidence of your hypocrisy. (POST 49 VS 51)

- Still you cannot answer my question in a simple manner: are you "allowed" to fear allah then? Instead of answering my question you resort to another wordy explanation which dodges the question. Yet you keep clamoring that it never said your "not allowed" to fear others in quran. So are you allowed to fear others then? Still on numerous occasions you cannot answer to your own blunder. Evidence of subterfuge. (POST 50, 53, and 54)

- Lastly, You claim "The standard for context is not the same as the standard for deriving meaning from the words directly in question.They are DIFFERENT. Not the same." Which I showed you are essentially the same thing. A very irrational and verbose argument to make. (POST 53)


All these weak arguments keep piling up. How much more of this nonsense do I have to take?

To sum it all up: unintelligent, superficial, unaccountable, verbose, lacking insight, hypocritical, subterfuge, and irrational your arguments were.

And to rebut all my arguments you mostly rely on one liners - like that explains everything. As if your words are omnipotent or something. Perhaps you delude yourself to be a god? It more or less indicates your slothful efforts to explain your religion.

I think it is fair to say that speaking more with you on the matter only makes things much more stupid than it should be. To engage in more stupidity is abundantly foolish.

However, this proves that your arguments fall short and are to be irrelevant. It shows that my understanding of Taqiyya is correct. I mean after all those weak arguments you made, how could anyone believe you? This proves that taqiyya shows that islam is not a religion of truth but of weak frail explanations. Thank you.

Happy new years. That's my gift to you.
Response: It's like someone is paying you to display such impotent logic because I find it hard to believe that you a sane person can be this idiotic in their logic.

For my argument to be weak, that means that you can show us the words "not allowed" or anything synonymous to it from the verse. You can't. Therefore, your own argument proves that I am right since you claim the verse means you are not allowed to fear others. If neither the words or it's synonym is there, that means the meaning is in the context. Once again proving that verse 3:175 refers to fearing Allah only in order to defeat the enemy according to context. So there is no contradiction.

My turn. Since my argument is that the verse refers to defeating the enemy according to context, let's see if those words or anything synonymous is there in the context.

And that He might make evident those who are hypocrites. For it was said to them, "Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend." They said, "If we had known [there would be] fighting, we would have followed you." They were nearer to disbelief that day than to faith, saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. And Allah is most Knowing of what they conceal -

Above we see the verse 3:167 refers to fighting and defending yourself and this discussion is continued unto verse 3:175. Therefore, the words synonymous to defeating the enemy ARE THERE. Thus proving my argument. Debunked as usual.

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Post #59

Post by sawthelight »

intheabyss wrote:However, this proves that your arguments fall short and are to be irrelevant. It shows that my understanding of Taqiyya is correct. I mean after all those weak arguments you made, how could anyone believe you? This proves that taqiyya shows that islam is not a religion of truth but of weak frail explanations. Thank you.
I forgot to add - islam in not only a religion of weak frail arguments but a religion of deceit. Not truth. Deceit.

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Post #60

Post by Al-Fatihah »

intheabyss wrote:
I forgot to add - islam in not only a religion of weak frail arguments but a religion of deceit. Not truth. Deceit.
Response: Yet your sad and weak rebuttals show otherwise, thus supporting the fact that Islam is the truth and the best of ideologies in morality and decency.

Post Reply