your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all.One last statement- or rather, two words. Radical Wahhabism. And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.
I don't think IainB meant any offense with that statement, he's just been on a roll here lately with the rules of debate logic thing. I've actually been enjoying the discussing ... Albeit quietly as I've never had the time to read the Koran so haven't anything relevant to add.
In case @Stoic Joker
had inferred that I might have been rude/offensive, I would just like to say that I had no intention of so being. I was merely taking at face value the comment about relative ignorance:
I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary- but I've never seen any argument that stands up to the light of reason. In fact, most of the Muslims that I know look down on this perversion of the Koran, which is why I was a bit befuddle about your comments. In your study of the Koran have you come upon something that I haven't in my admittedly limited exposure to it?
There is an admission of ignorance of the thing being discussed. The emboldened bit poses a redundant question which is answered in the same question - i.e., It would be reasonable to suppose that if you admitted to having had only a limited exposure to the Koran, then someone who had studied the thing for 11 years would very likely "have ... come upon something that..." you hadn't. (That's why I did not bother attempting an answer to that Q.)
Then the confirmation of ignorance is tacitly made (no denial), together with a statement:
One last statement- or rather, two words. Radical Wahhabism. And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.
- so there is a claim to special knowledge that something is a fact, but without proof. So the overall gist of this seems to be a now qualified set of statements:
I am relativey ignorant about the Koran, having had an "admittedly limited exposure to it".It would not be correct to call this a good example of a valid argument - for anything, really.
I do know what I am talking about as regards "Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary".
I know that Mullahs - "Radical Wahhabists" - in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things [in reference to Allah's directive for Islamic supremacy] necessary.
By implication, I refute the truth of [Allah's directive for Islamic supremacy], despite being ignorant of where this might be detailed in the Koran.
So I hold to my statement (without substantiation) that Mullahs - "Radical Wahhabists" - in many cases pervert parts of the Koran, but am not prepared/able to substantiate it.
Furthermore it is a smear - i.e., it makes an easy and deliberately unsubstantiated and fundamentally offensive allegation about the Mullahs - one which they are not here to defend themselves from. Regardless of what our opinion might be regarding Islamists, we do not know whether this allegation is true nor, if it is true, then to what extent it is true.
I do not wish to convey here the impression that I am "standing up for" or supporting the spiritual or moral integrity of Islamic Mullahs/Imams generally here, nor for that matter that I would stand up for Roman Catholic priests - it being a matter of record that both these groups at least have a propensity for what the Western laws call pedophilia - i.e., to bugger little boys and/or rape little girls. They also rape mature women. That is reprehensible to me, yet they often seem to be allowed to get away with it with little or no punishment, sometimes especially because it may not directly breach the religious
laws (deemed to come from God/Allah) that they uphold as supreme - e.g., what we in the West call "pedophilia" is effectively de rigueur
for Muslim men with little girls, as it is a behaviour that emulates the prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who reportedly married Aisha at age 6 or 7. So there's nothing "wrong" with it, d'you see? It's religious custom
, innit? Oh, so that's all right then, best beloved.
Some people might say that this sort of thing would make the individual Imam/priest "unfit to perform the role of Imam/priest", but how silly would that
I mean, it's akin to saying that because you commited some crime - sexual or otherwise - then you are not fit to go around talking about your imaginary friend to anyone who wants to listen and who might actually even believe
in the same imaginary friend. Eh? That's surely a non sequitur
. Why shouldn't they be free to do this, despite whatever crime they may have commtted? What has one thing got to do with the other?
Fortunately, I think there is no law - not yet in the Western world, at any rate - that prohibits people from walking around or standing on platforms talking about their imaginary friends and myths about these imaginary friends. Even though they are unequivocally being irrational in their belief (QED), psychiatrists do not certify these people as being insane nor keep them locked up in lunatic asylums (though some religious orders effectively save the psychiatrists the trouble by doing that to themselves anyway - i.e., by cloistering themselves in convents or monasteries).
So, whilst we are bellyaching about and discussing the more obscene aspects of Corporations producing products designed to fail, why don't we consider treating, for example, religions, priests, soothsayers and Aboriginal bone-pointing medicine-men all the same - as legal entities (persons) - regardless of whether they are:
- Corporations e.g., including organised/mainstream religions such as the RC Church, the C of E, Islamists, Scientologists, or
- individuals: e.g., including wandering Hindu fakirs/mendicants and medicine-men, palmists, astrologers and other soothsayers/fortune-tellers?
The laws enabling this already exist to some extent in the UK, in the form of the UK Trade Descriptions Act.
The Corporation could thus be obliged to include in their product/service description the caveat that:
"Design obsolescene" may affect/reduce the useful working lifespan of the product/service beyond any period of warranty.
This would be similar to the obligatory UK Financial Disclosures Act
which mandates that any offer to buy or "invest" in a financial services product (e.g., a with-profits life policy) must be accompanied by a specific statement which (from memory) says something to the effect that:
"No warranty express or implied is offered that the value of your investment will rise. The value of your investment may rise or fall."
This is a bit like the Government Health Warnings on retail tobacco products, I suppose:
"Smoking can damage your health."
or the less equivocal:
- except it would probably be something more along the lines of, for example:
"Investing may be damaging to your financial health."
Now, if the product or service that you advertise yourself as providing is not described honestly
(factually, truthfully, accurately and correctly), then that is illegal and you may find yourself facing quite a hefty fine. That could include, for example: faith healing; saving your soul; being given 72 virgins in Paradise; climbing aboard the alien spaceship flying in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet; providing relief from the past problems caused us by the spirits of space aliens, so that you can realise Operating Thetan, etc.
Prof. Richard Dawkins has already recommended this as a useful approach, when he said a while back in an article in the UK Sunday Times newspaper that, "Astrologers should be prosecuted under the trade descriptions act".
I couldn't agree more.