Originally posted by RaisenIf you're half black, then what's your other race/skin color? And if you're half Mexican, what's your other nationality--and do you carry dual citizenship?
i'm half Mexican and half white.
Originally posted by Stealth MooseI am the Shame Bro 🙁
I lol'd. I mean, wait... How juvenile. Shame bro.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If you're half black, then what's your other race/skin color? And if you're half Mexican, what's your other nationality--and do you carry dual citizenship?
you know exactly what i'm talking about. i'm an American citizen. my mother is an American citizen who is of Mestizo blood origin.
Originally posted by Raisen
you know exactly what i'm talking about. i'm an American citizen. my mother is an American citizen who is of Mestizo blood origin.
Skin color, ethnicity, race and nationality are different concepts. Your previous posts indicate a lack of familiarity with stuff like phenotypes and genetic variation. Anyone who classifies people based on skin color is simply ignorant.
So perhaps this clarifies why I find your derailing here to be pointless.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Skin color, ethnicity, race and nationality are different concepts. Your previous posts indicate a lack of familiarity with stuff like phenotypes and genetic variation. Anyone who classifies people based on skin color is simply ignorant.So perhaps this clarifies why I find your derailing here to be pointless.
oh. you're the blond haired, blue eyed native right? the one with .2% apache in him?
don't be mad bro.
Originally posted by RaisenHow could I have known your mother was Mestizo? Saying you're "Mexican" is no more a clue to your ethnic make-up than me saying "I'm Canadian". My entire family is British, but if I said I was "half-white, half-Canadian", I'm only filling in half the picture for both nation and race. I could be part British-black and part Candian-Metis. Which would make be black/Native/white in race, and U.K./Canadian/any part of Africa or the Caribbean (most likely) in nationality. And that's not even including citizenship
you know exactly what i'm talking about. i'm an American citizen. my mother is an American citizen who is of Mestizo blood origin.
Spoiler:
I could totally be Andorran.
Kinda a lot to infer isn't it?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How could I have known your mother was Mestizo? Saying you're "Mexican" is no more a clue to your ethnic make-up than me saying "I'm Canadian". My entire family is British, but if I said I was "half-white, half-Canadian", I'm only filling in half the picture for both nation and race. I could be part British-black and part Candian-Metis. Which would make be black/Native/white in race, and U.K./Canadian/any part of Africa or the Caribbean (most likely) in nationality. And that's not even including citizenshipSpoiler:
I could totally be Andorran.Kinda a lot to infer isn't it?
😂 🤣 I just about fell out of my chair. Good job!
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How could I have known your mother was Mestizo? Saying you're "Mexican" is no more a clue to your ethnic make-up than me saying "I'm Canadian". My entire family is British, but if I said I was "half-white, half-Canadian", I'm only filling in half the picture for both nation and race. I could be part British-black and part Candian-Metis. Which would make be black/Native/white in race, and U.K./Canadian/any part of Africa or the Caribbean (most likely) in nationality. And that's not even including citizenshipSpoiler:
I could totally be Andorran.Kinda a lot to infer isn't it?
almost every Mexican American will say that their race is Mexican. ever heard of "la raza" they know it's inaccurate, but it's just what is is. you know this also, but you're choosing to be pedantic and soft troll me. do you speak correctly all the time? do you use slang?
Originally posted by RaisenOut of curiousity, why do you think I know about "La Raza"? I'm flattered you think I know everything, but in fact I don't--The Spanish language and Latino people are rather underepresented in Canada. I had to look it up just now--and if you all know it's "inaccurate", then that's kinda the problem, isn't it?
almost every Mexican American will say that their race is Mexican.
I learned something today about this. I hope you did too... about the difference between race and nationality?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Out of curiousity, why do you think I know about "La Raza"? I'm flattered you think I know everything, but in fact I don't--The Spanish language and Latino people are rather underepresented in Canada. I had to look it up just now--and if you all know it's "inaccurate", then that's kinda the problem, isn't it?I learned something today about this. I hope you did too... about the difference between race and nationality?
ahhh. you're Canadian. explains it. anybody who grew up around Mexican people(see, I did it again) in the U.S.A. can confirm what I told you.
so you can lower your nose a little now.
This seems a very odd point of view to have. You say IF there is an all knowing creator, THIS is what he would have done. That makes no sense to me. You just have to accept the reality of things, it just what it is. To me, its like you might as well say IF there is an all knowing creator, why would there be any death, any pain, any sadness? I mean its just the reality of life, wether you believe in god or not, its just a reality of life you have to accept. How this is to be interpreted as an argument against god, I don't understand.
Let me ask you something, if I were to say well evolution is false because if we did evolve then why don't we have wings? Why don't we live for a thousand years? Why didn't we evolve to the point that we don't require food? Would you actually accept any of these arguments as reasonable against evolution? No, of course not, its just ridiculous, because all it does is demonstrate me not accepting the reality of life, all it does is show me completely creating random parameters out of thin air and trying to use them as tho they actually carry any type of weight. If we were to accept your argument that Allah revealing the message in quran is an argument against his existence, then where do we stop? Do we also accept that since you stubbed your toe this morning and it hurt, its an argument against his existence? Do we also accept that since your coffee wasn't as hot as you would like it to be this morning, its an argument against his existence?
In addition, you should realize that the vast majority of muslims DON'T speak arabic. That doesn't mean we are completely ignorant to the quran. I don't speak arabic, but I have made effort to try and understand. There are plenty of arabic speaking people, both for islam and against islam, from whom we can easily obtain knowledge. But just because you would rather be spoon fed a "right" answer, that doesn't make any of what you're saying valid.
I mean what a ridiculous idea. What should have been done? Should a thousand quran have been revealed in each and every different language and dialect? Is this the only thing that would satisfy you? Or must have it just been revealed in english, just to personally satisfy you? This is a point of view that I find very nonsensical, you just have to accept the reality of life, the quran is in arabic, it is what it is. This doesn't mean you can never learn anything about it, you can very easily learn about it. This doesn't automatically render one incompetent of learning the quran or islam, so many non muslims who don't know a word of arabic have embraced islam, how did they do that?
If that is truly how you feel, then thats how you feel, I can't tell you how to feel or how not to feel. But I just find it a very odd way of thinking, and I don't see how one can logically come to the conclusions which you have come to.
As far as my take on it, I don't think these facts written in the quran are some kind of be all end all for a muslim to say there you have it, i'm right you're wrong. The quran is so deep, it addresses so many aspects of humanity, of life, to try and sum it up in a few verses is just doing a complete injustice to the knowledge given to us in this holy book. Both the op and myself have both went out of our way to reiterate the fact that the quran is a book of signs, NOT a book of science. So nobody is sitting here saying look, here is your unequivocal proof. We are merely just pointing out one of the many beauties of the quran, the signs found within the quran, just as the quran claims itself to have. These are just a few of the many signs given to us by our creator.
I would also like to point out that the prophet Muhammad IS a human just like all the rest of us. ALL the prophets were humans. We love and respect them because of the message they brought to us, but our worship is only to our creator, not to any human being.
------
Buddhism is a man-made religion that appeared in India in the fifth century B.C.
Prince Siddhartha Gautama was the real name of Buddha, founder of Buddhism. He was the son of a king who ruled a city northern India. His mother was also a daughter of a king. He married his cousin when he was sixteen years old. This is what was mentioned about his biography in different references. This is evidence that he was a human being; he had a father, a mother and a wife, and he was not a Prophet.
However, there is no doubt that his followers stated some exaggerations about his personality. For instance, they stated that once he entered one temple and the idols therein prostrated to him, that the devil tried to lure him but in vain, and that light surrounded his head and his body flashed a great light. Those who saw him on this state said that he could not be a human being but a god, Allaah is High above what they associate to Him.
Buddhism is a false religion that is based on false beliefs, such as reincarnation, that Buddha was the son of god and the savior of humanity, and that he takes all their sins.
This belief is similar to the belief of many Christian sects regarding ‘Eesa (Jesus) may Allaah exalt his mention the son of Maryam (Mary), may Allaah exalt her mention.
---
One of the highlights in the life of the great Prophet Muhammad (SA) is the fact that he was untrained and unschooled (ie, he did not attend any school). He had not been trained by any teacher and neither he had acquainted himself with any written work.
No historian, Muslim or non-Muslim, can be found who would claim that the Prophet (SA) had been taught to read or write by anyone in his childhood or youth, let alone during his old age, which was the time of his mission. No one has ever either indicated an instance of the Prophet (SA) having read or written a line.
The Arabs, particularly those from Hijaz, were generally unlettered during that period, and those of them who could read and write were very well-known and very few in number. It would, as a rule, be impossible for a man to learn this skill under such conditions and not be well-known for this virtue among the people.
As we know, at William James Durant remarks: "Evidently no one thought of teaching him (the great Prophet) reading and writing. At that time the art of reading, and writing was of little significance to the Arabs. For this very reason, there were no more than seventeen persons among the Quraysh tribe who could read and write. It is not known that Muhammad himself should have written anything. After his appointment as Prophet, he had a special scribe for him. Yet the most popular and eloquent Arabic book was recited by him. He had a better acquaintance and grasp of the affairs than the educated ones".' [1]
John Davenport in his book entitled: "Apology for Fault to Muhammad and Qur'an" observes: "As regards education, such as is usual throughout the world, it is the general belief that Muhammad had no education other than that which was commonly practiced in his tribe". [2]
Constante Vergil Giorgio in his book entitled: "Muhammad - a Prophet to Be Acquainted with Afresh" remarks: "Although he was unschooled, the early verses sent down to him spoke of the pen and knowledge; namely of writing, putting into writing, learning, and of teaching. In no other major religion has knowledge been so extensively appreciated, and no other religion can be found in which such an importance has been attached to knowledge, at its initial stage of development. Had Muhammad been a scholar, no surprise would be caused at the verses having been sent down into the Ghar Hira' (Hira' Cave), since a scholar appreciates knowledge, but the Prophet was neither schooled nor tutored. I congratulate the Muslims on their religion having so dearly regarded, at its inception, the acquisition of knowledge". [3]
Gustav Lubon in his famous work: "The Civilization of Islam and the Arabs" notes: "It is well-known that the Prophet was unschooled. This stands to reason also by appealing to inductive generalization, that if he happened to be knowledgeable, the contents and paragraphs of Qur'an would have been better interrelated. Furthermore, if Muhammad was not unschooled, he would not have been capable of propagating a new religion, for an unschooled person is better aware of the needs of the common (illiterate) people and thus is more capable of helping them to the right path. However, whether the Prophet was schooled or unschooled, undoubtedly, he was possessing the highest degree of intellect, wisdom and awareness". [4]
Not being conversant with the Qur'anic concepts, materialistically oriented Gustav Lubon fabricates nonsensical words concerning the relationships of Qur'anic verses and the incapability of the educated to understand the needs of the uneducated, thus insults the Qur'an and the Prophet (SA). Yet he admits that there is no recorded evidence or indication concerning the Prophet (SA) having been able to read and write.