America's Most Prominant Muslim Scholar On ISIS

If you've read it and disagree with the scholar then refute the scholar's interpretation with some kind of point and case example.


GAWD, thats what im asking of you if you can't come up with real sustenance for your reasoning

You've read it, so it can't be explained to you. because ur all knowing *** interprets a different ethnicity's religious teachings perfectly _~_~ /sarcasm . I call ur bluff; lets see one case and point example of how the scholar =MIGHT= be wrong with his interpretation?

Im asking you to do some real thinking and give some real sustenance to your reasoning if your gonna spew what you think.


YOU JUST GIVE EXCUSES; saying you've read it.... LOL


come back when you can step ur game up drunk bender

I've already explained as to why that would be a stupid waste of time, you don't seem to be able to comprehend reading too well.

All this "scholar" was doing was making an elaborate no true Scotsman argument, nothing more.

again with the ad-hominem, you're full of fallacies tonight aren't you?

I'm not going to lower myself to your trolling to bother to post references to murdering infidels, as it would be quite pointless to do so, as you're already bias as ***.

then prove it.. stop talking until you have one thing to refute what the scholar says to prove that the isis are twisting his religion.


You can't get into an arguement and then say i dont wanna waste my time with any real reasoning


YOU ILLOGICAL. YOUR a drunk ***

Your the one boasting that you're opinion is supreme over the scholars

Your the one that has to prove your acquisitions

You don't want too because your bluffing and don't have any real sustenance

I can most certainly call somebody's claims a load of *** and not back them up and still be entirely logical as I'm not the one who made the claims. The burden of proof lies on him and his proof is a sham.

Preachers are no more scholars, than the Pope is an expert on science. I'm not going to take your bait, go troll elsewhere.

All you have is logical fallacies upon logical fallacies, and it's getting boring.

You got nothing. you make excuses for why you think you can make claims without having to show real reasoning behind why you're thinking is better then mine.

lol you're making the arugment against me that i called you out on first.

proves my point that you got NOTHING and are a blabbering fool

I didn't realize I acquired anything...

I don't want to because it's the intellectual equivalent of talking to a child, my nephew can construct better arguments than you, and he's 9.

I'm stating (not boasting) that a preacher's word is irrelevant, when it's there in black and white, we don't need somebody to interpret it for us, we know what it *** says. Well we do, you obviously don't.

You're the one guilty of it is why, and I'm getting tired of feeding you, can't you troll elsewhere?

Ok so lets do this. if we follow your logic about words on a page. and that the ink is black and the paper is white right.. follow me now.. then that means the interpretation of what it says is always clear? YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW VERY little about religion in general which is why I think your a blabbering fool.

guilty of what? i called you out on not having the sustenance to actually make a real argument against the scholar's argument; but your to chicken ***to admit you can't make one. So i call you illogical for not being able to follow through, and then you call me illogical for thinking that you should be able too.

I called you out on it first, then you started making the same exact argument against me, just like a kid would do when they got nothing.

I don't need to make an argument against his, his argument falls apart on itself when he uses a logical fallacy. Not to even mention that there's printed evidence to the contrary.

You're illogical because you can't deduce for ***, and you're stupid because your spelling is terrible, I know inbred rednecks that can type better than that.

Have fun with your incessant trolling though, I'm outtie.

Bender your oudated, i've beaten ur *** logically soundly about how the guy has an actual argument concerning the interpretation of biblical teachings...

And here you are thinking that biblical teachings are clear as day for what they mean.

They're written in different era. the meanings are not the same. the words put together are awkward sometimes and therefor are not always clearly interpreted for what the intended meaning is. if you had any enlightenment about religions you wouldnt look like such a fool in reguards to religion.

your strong stance about hating religion is proof enough to anyone with common sense that you don't really know what the is going on inside of any religion. your an outsider looking in that thinks he knows about religion.

how many different versions of the christian bible exist? many many, and you know why because of interpretation reasonings. yet here you are saying words on a page are clearly interpreted by your all knowing god-like opinion

Im illogical because i cant deduce. I called you out on calling me illogical after i called you illogical. your arguments are like a kid.

Good grief, i spelled some words wrong. did it make you misinterpret what i meant? Thats all that matters in the end. Finally you have to attack my spelling, because you got nothing else.

Come up with real argumentative writing; with case and point examples if you're going to refute someone else's case and point examples. Not with your classic attack other ***tactics. and excusing yourself from someone calling you out on something.

Yah go to bed kid. you sure did look like one today

You wouldn't understand logic if it derived your ***.

The guy doesn't have an argument.

People don't need a prophet to decipher religious text for them, this isn't the dark ages.

I understand religion just fine, and how much of a tool you are of it, and it's sad to watch.

I'll say this again: I don't hate religion itself.

That's not why many versions exist, but yes the message of passages can be derived from the multiple translations and iterations, and it's not that difficult to discern that the god of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is an evil ***, who is a fictional character written by evil men who wanted to control their followers and amass power. But you are but a sheep (same with your "scholar" of these religions, so I don't expect either of you to comprehend such truths.

only fools think that because they can read something they'l correctly interpret ancient old biblical teachings exactly as intended. shows your ignorance on the subject imo

You called me illogical because you don't comprehend the meaning of the word, I called you illogical because it eludes you, much like the English language.

Yes, using the wrong words does change the meaning of your sentence.

No, that's not how it works, people don't have to disprove things, people have to back up what they claim, with evidence that isn't a sham, all you have is a sham, a fraud, a load of ***.

But I grow tired of your trolling, and am going to bed.

you obviously don't actually care about the subject matter and just wanted to spite me.

otherwise you wouldn't have made excuses this whole time

I found some names to call you with some reasoning behind them. what you got? because i can't spell? lol

Im not trolling im calling you out on something. i want you to prove via case and point like a real argumentative essay writer would. You can't/ you won't/ you got excuses and hate speech

When i say that the scholar is awesome for showing the isis up with his documentation on the subject matter.

If i understand you correctly.

you say that because you can read, you know that the scholar is wrong and is the one twisting it.... THEN HOW? you have to provide evidence against the scholar's documentation that he is the one twisting it and not them... g

I don't understand how it is, that because you can read what the scholar is talking about, that it has any refrence to the scholar being wrong. he is showing up the isis with real facts about how they are the ones twisting the interpretation

Yet this isn't an argumentative essay, obviously or you'd fail since you keep making elementary spelling/grammar mistakes that you should be flogged for.

I already proved my point and explained to you the situation, you keep trolling and calling names.

You like Maldini don't know what hate speech is, both of you need to grow up, you confuse stuff you don't like to hear with hate speech.

Your poster boy's got nothin' but his interpretation of a several thousand year old book, which is inaccurate based on it's own text. You claim one needs to be read it to understand it, and I say you're full of ***, I don't need to back that up as I'm calling *** on your claim.

It's like you say you have a baseball, and I say you don't, and then you accuse me of not proving you don't have a baseball, I don't need to, the burden of proof is not on me.

Like I said before: this will devolve into nothing but the same arguments I have with Daemon about him being a Christian apologist, and I've long since grown weary of that argument, try to come up with something new.

You should know by now jet doesn't prove things.

No I don't, he's the one making the claim (and by extension, you) not I.

The burden of proof is on you, but you can't disprove the wording that's right there, you can merely try to excuse it and twist it, like Daemon does with the old testament.

It's lunacy, pure lunacy. There's no facts that you're presenting or him, it's his viewpoint, which contradicts the very thing he's sourcing.

ftfy

Oh here comes the spelling/grammar mistakes card.