Suggestion for Layth and Mods : Moderated Debates
-
Peace mquran,
Can or should this forum allow people to come in wantonly and accuse al-quraan of this , that and other without justifying their claims? In my opinion, it should not...
what would you accept as justification? Even Atheists are invited here to examine the god alone islam, therefore its basis, the quran the book. For instance, if I find contradictory "women and men have similar rights but men are a degree above them" what kind of justification do you want? the key word is "but" = similar rights or not? This it's just an example, I have read a lot of explanations, so I am not asking you to exaplain this but to tell me what kind of justification you would want.
-
Elenawhat would you accept as justification? Even Atheists are invited here to examine the god alone islam, therefore its basis, the quran the book. For instance, if I find contradictory "women and men have similar rights but men are a degree above them" what kind of justification do you want? the key word is "but" = similar rights or not? This it's just an example, I have read a lot of explanations, so I am not asking you to exaplain this but to tell me what kind of justification you would want.
Justification here would include verses from al-quraan or customs practised by humankind.
-
Peace mq and thanks for the clrifications... much bettah! ;D
The only thing left to do is actually have a moderated debate. I especially like the parallel thread idea.
Contact any of the mods or myself and, let's get it on!
PS - Can we say 2 or 4 (2 vs 2) participants on one subject?
-
PS - Can we say 2 or 4 (2 vs 2) participants on one subject?
and what are the rest of us supposed to do?
I'm not liking this whole moderated debate idea. We don't need it. We shouldn't need it. And I don't want it.What moderators should do is delete posts that are off topic or contain too much drama and little else or at least warn the user. That's all.
This forum has been working really well for every type of debate (much better than others) except the "contradictions" thread, where i think people got too emotional (on both sides).
Give that debate another chance without changing anything, and see what happens.
-
and what are the rest of us supposed to do?
??? This is for people who agree to a moderated debate from both sides, it's not a normal forum debate. The rest can do what they normally do and/or discuss it in parallel threads if they must.I'm not liking this whole moderated debate idea. We don't need it. We shouldn't need it. And I don't want it.
We do need it in some cases, these are the cases that will actually go in for it.This forum has been working really well for every type of debate (much better than others) except the "contradictions" thread, where i think people got too emotional (on both sides).
No, there have been a lot of debates in the past where it could have been used with far better results and less frustration. No doubt there are going to be a lot of topics that can use this form of debate in the future as well.Give that debate another chance without changing anything, and see what happens.
I commend your optimism. I really don't share it because I've seen the patterns most forums go through inclusive of this one. It doesn't change much. Some of it depends on the kind of people one is debating tbh. Some play fair and some play dirty. This is against the rules of fair debate and these rules should be enforced if need be. -
Why don't we create a section for moderated debates?
Now if we had a critical examination section, we could have had a category for moderated debates in it...otherwise, another seperate section will have to do I guess. Peace.
-
Peace mq and thanks for the clrifications... much bettah!
And thank you for your attention.
The only thing left to do is actually have a moderated debate. I especially like the parallel thread idea.
Contact any of the mods or myself and, let's get it on!Allow me to formulate the phrases and contact the person first. Once he agrees, we will then get in touch.
PS - Can we say 2 or 4 (2 vs 2) participants on one subject?
Wow, its getting to be like badminton or tennis now! Or you could think of it like so, all the people for or against are at liberty to contact the representative party to add in their points at the appropriate juncture.
-
Phoenixand what are the rest of us supposed to do?
I'm not liking this whole moderated debate idea. We don't need it. We shouldn't need it. And I don't want it.You could contribute to the side you believe in.
I don't prefer a moderated debate idea either but disagreeing with you, I think we need it. We owe the newcomers to the forum a right view as to the capabilities of al-quraan in the field of discourse. If they came and saw how al-quraan is being disparaged and how any attempt to defend it is being obfuscated, they would get the exact idea the detractors are trying to propagate.
What moderators should do is delete posts that are off topic or contain too much drama and little else or at least warn the user. That's all.
You would need a professional moderator for that.
-
Peace all. Just for clarification,this phrase 'for or against'....Is this like bushes' 'youre either with us or against us'? .....In a positive critical discussion do we have to start off from 'specific representative parties',and 'entrenched positions'? And is there going to be 'branding',jingoism,and sectarianism in these discussions....Or critical study of the quran?....If people just want to defend their books from faith,or subjective means,then i dont see a lot being achieved....unless people are brave and open-minded enough to handle some home-truths..... elektro
Peace all. ps; no offense to the moderators,but they have not even addressed the jaxal/dq/banning issues with the other members of the forum....You really expect moderated debates to be 'impartial' and competent.....(im not saying the moderators are corrupt or intentionally bad,but i dont think they have the time or professionalism to moderate effectively....If they prove me wrong,i will apologise and stand corrected. ) -
Enquirereace all. Just for clarification,this phrase 'for or against'....Is this like bushes' 'youre either with us or against us'? .....
One is 'for and against' , the other is 'with and against' . You needn't be 'for' a thing in order to be 'with' a thing. I'm not for giving drunks 'curative measures of alcohol' as part of my taxes, but I do it anyway, so i'm 'with' it.
In a positive critical discussion do we have to start off from 'specific representative parties',and 'entrenched positions'?
This is a DEBATE so that people who claim certain things (like the quran doesnt have bla bla bla, as I recall one chap crowing some weeks ago) will have to prove their points and not use the forum as a place for verbal defacation.
And is there going to be 'branding',jingoism,and sectarianism in these discussions....Or critical study of the quran?
Or for that matter, dirty 'hit and run' tactician? People who come in with full of slogans but refuse to entertain even simple questions. We can't have such losers, you're right.
....If people just want to defend their books from faith,or subjective means,then i dont see a lot being achieved....unless people are brave and open-minded enough to handle some home-truths.....
You wouldn't see a lot being achieved because your goal is the dismantling of al-quraan and your ill-fated attempt in the contradiction thread, I can see why you're not relishing the idea that your answers will be checked for relevance ) . As for being brave, I think the first person who needs your advice is yourself and then Lote-Tree and Danish. You three have been coming and peddling your ideologies but think yourselves too high-and-mighty to respond to us religious plebs.
-
Enquirereace all. Just for clarification,this phrase 'for or against'....Is this like bushes' 'youre either with us or against us'? .....
One is 'for and against' , the other is 'with and against' . You needn't be 'for' a thing in order to be 'with' a thing. I'm not for giving drunks 'curative measures of alcohol' as part of my taxes, but I do it anyway, so i'm 'with' it.peace mquran,
i think what enquirer meant was that there shouldn't be 2 FIXED positions. For or against.It isn't always black and white, so I think everyone should be able to post their understanding without having to worry about where they stand.
Also agree with enquirer (kind of) that the purpose of the debates shouldn't be defending the Quran, but acquiring a better understanding of what it says and what it is.
-
Peace mquran. I guessed rightly you had a hidden agenda when you suggested these moderated debates....Male intuition......or should i say revelation...
Your subjective opinion may suggest 'hit and run'....but i try to discuss when there is some benefit in the discussion,where the discussion isnt personalised,and when there is some civility,or compatibility in the discussion...If you feel thats dishonest or running,then thats your subjective opinion....No offense but i dont think there are many who are open-minded enough to even entertain a constructive debate about the quran....just as some sunnis cannot debate about hadith without being emotional,or some christians cannot debate about jesus' exclusive divinity without getting irrational/emotional etc....I think you underestimate the fact that there are very valid arguments against a lot of 'quranic' understandings'... In your discussions on the forum with AB,you guys are barely civil,and are often not constructive....You think i want to waste my time with baseless argumentation?... You seem a very intelligent guy from your posts,but i think some of this intelligence is mis-directed.... I dont see why you have a burning need to prove the quran to be 'infallible'?....Why dont you follow its goood advices instead? I notice that a lot of people here just use whatever interpretation suits them,or their intellect/current mindset.......thats very subjective....I dont have too much problem with people doing that,but then allow others the liberty of their 'subjective' opinions too.
For the record,im not into post-mordernism or moral relativism....The closest you can get to pigeon-holing me is a 'humanist'...
Peace all. Ps;i wish you peace,no hard feelings...Just gotta say it like it is sometimes. ) -
Phoenix think what enquirer meant was that there shouldn't be 2 FIXED positions. For or against.
This is a very interesting position coming from Enquirer, my dear Phoenix. Enquirer came with a very strong 'do you really believe bla bla bla' to me some weeks ago. His position was already very fixed.
My position vis-a-vis al-quraan divinity is black and white. I believe it's of divine origin and free of error. Anyone who believes this notion is incorrect will then take the opposing camp. People unsure can always sit it out.
It isn't always black and white, so I think everyone should be able to post their understanding without having to worry about where they stand.
Not always, but sometimes it is and this is where debates come in.
Also agree with enquirer (kind of) that the purpose of the debates shouldn't be defending the Quran, but acquiring a better understanding of what it says and what it is.
Funnily, he doesn't mind attacking the Quran but runs and hides when people defend it.
-
Peace mquran. I guessed rightly you had a hidden agenda when you suggested these moderated debates....Male intuition......or should i say revelation...
My agenda isn't hidden. It is quite simply to stop the misinformation perpetrated by yourself and your associates. Why would I hide this agenda at all?
Your subjective opinion may suggest 'hit and run'....but i try to discuss when there is some benefit in the discussion,where the discussion isnt personalised,and when there is some civility,or compatibility in the discussion...If you feel thats dishonest or running,then thats your subjective opinion....
So if someone else calls you to defend your allegations, will you then step up? Why don't you kindly tell me how to address you? I will address you however you choose, as long as you step up and defend your allegations.
No offense but i dont think there are many who are open-minded enough to even entertain a constructive debate about the quran....just as some sunnis cannot debate about hadith without being emotional,or some christians cannot debate about jesus' exclusive divinity without getting irrational/emotional etc....I think you underestimate the fact that there are very valid arguments against a lot of 'quranic' understandings'...
Are there? Do you want to bring them foward in a moderated debate or will you keep inhabiting your little hiding place?
In your discussions on the forum with AB,you guys are barely civil,and are often not constructive....
I return the civility of my discussion partner. If you were true, you would comment on actual views and pro or against, but what you do is intellectual cowardice. You whine 'oh , you two disagree, so even though i havent the fainted what you're on about, you both must be wrong'. That's is quite laughable.
You think i want to waste my time with baseless argumentation?... You seem a very intelligent guy from your posts,but i think some of this intelligence is mis-directed.... I dont see why you have a burning need to prove the quran to be 'infallible'?....Why dont you follow its goood advices instead?
You don't mind making accusations but when it comes to defense, you think its 'baseless'? That's a contradiction.
My intention is to ensure that the people who come in here afresh have a fair chance at seeing just how al-quraan handles argumentation. You're against that because your need is for people to join you in your disbelief.
I notice that a lot of people here just use whatever interpretation suits them,or their intellect/current mindset.......thats very subjective....I dont have too much problem with people doing that,but then allow others the liberty of their 'subjective' opinions too.
Really, do you want to debate that point , in a moderated fashion, of course.
For the record,im not into post-mordernism or moral relativism....The closest you can get to pigeon-holing me is a 'humanist'...
Peace all. Ps;i wish you peace,no hard feelings...Just gotta say it like it is sometimes.I wouldn't even call you a humanist because humanists are generally people with integrity and decency. Humanists whom I've met and read about don't do hit and runs.
-
...but in any given issue crying foul will always be there.
I see what you mean. A debate hasn't even started and... )This is a debate that will be agreed upon between the 2 members from the get go. No agreement, no debate. It's futile to argue about a debate that doesn't exist. brickwall
-
Peace mquran. I guess its time for me to 'hide and run' again... But only from your posts my friend...As i have told you before,i will not make the mistake i made previously by assuming people are ready for a constructive,unemotional debate on the quran,or that you and me are 'compatible' for a constructive debate....I really dont necessarily mind what your or anybodies beliefs are.....Its behaviour that matters to me.....As for your subjective opinions you pass on me,danish and lote-tree....Well i dont think we are going to loose much sleep over someone criticising our characters from the vantage point of a computer....
peace all. ps;if i dont adress you for a while,dont take offense...i think its best for everybodies peace....And that is what islam is supposed to be about....peace..... -
Peace mquran. I guess its time for me to 'hide and run' again... But only from your posts my friend...As i have told you before,i will not make the mistake i made previously by assuming people are ready for a constructive,unemotional debate on the quran,or that you and me are 'compatible' for a constructive debate....I really dont necessarily mind what your or anybodies beliefs are.....Its behaviour that matters to me.....
No of course not, how can we be ready for a guy like you, who posts and posts but never answers? Behaviour matters, huh? Good stuff. What do you call of behaviour of people who make statements , commit others to answering but runs and hides thereafter?
As for your subjective opinions you pass on me,danish and lote-tree....Well i dont think we are going to loose much sleep over someone criticising our characters from the vantage point of a computer....
I really don't care. But to the best of my ability, I will challenge your campaign of misinformation.
Also, I really didn't expect you, Danish or Lote-tree to EVER step up for debate. It's not just your ability to be honest and decent. People like you will always hide and never be upfront.
peace all. ps;if i dont adress you for a while,dont take offense...i think its best for everybodies peace....And that is what islam is supposed to be about....peace.....
Islam's peace comes AFTER conflict and victory over mischief, not as a result of lying down and taking fecal matter from the likes of you.
-
peace
thanks to mquran for your answer about the justifications.
and
those expressions related to the last episode of the digestion + the ' you no integrity and decency.. etc ' stuff is what the mods had to delete and send some lines to the user reminding the rules of etiquette needed online and offline.