aliasghark, on 07 February 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:
Still waiting for you to back up your claim Christianlady "From what I have heard, Iran is threatening on wiping Jewish people off the earth. At least, this is what media tells us."
None of your citations make this argument.
There is a logical process called (in English) Inductive reasoning. Below is an explanation of inductive reasoning:
is a logical process in
which a conclusion is proposed that contains
more information than the observations or experience on which
it is based. Every crow ever seen was black; all crows are black:
of the conclusion is verifiable only in terms
of future experience and certainty
is attainable only if all possible instances
have been examined.
In the example,
there is no certainty
that a white crow will
not be found tomorrow, although past experience would make such
an occurrence seem
Let's use both deductive and inductive reasoning concerning my "claim", shall we? Let's break it up on parts.
"From what I have heard,"
Here, we use deductive reasoning. I have heard this... what have I heard? Let's see...
Iran is threatening on wiping Jewish people off the earth.
With the above, we can use inductive reasoning. First, let's see what the Interpreter first told the English speaking world concerning what the Iranian president said:
Imam ghoft een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Qods bayad az safheh-i ruzgar mahv shaved
Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map"
My claim was " From what I have heard, Iran is threatening on wiping Jewish people off the earth. At least, this is what media tells us."
Using inductive reasoning, we can use the reasoning as follows. First of all, who is talking? The Iranian president, who stands for Iran.
Who is the "occupying regime" in Israel? Jewish people (or are they Arab people?
Map = earth
Do you understand this concept?
below is a link of an email that has been circulating for a long time concerning this Iranian Presdient's famous words (translated into English, because most Americans do not know Farsi nor are interested in learning Farsi.)
Some of The Differences Between Muslims & Jews
A very revealing set of facts
Muslims want to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth -- wow, what a difference that would make........."
(Please note, I did not write the above, but yes I have seen it before.)
If you wish to argue that the Iranian interpreter translated incorrectly. Fine. Let's use inductive reasoning to see what Steele thinks the Iranian President meant.
This is where things really get interesting. Ahmadinejad actually misquoted Khomeini, who used the phrase "sahneh-i ruzgar." As the Times
noted several years ago, "sahneh" literally means "scene" or "stage" and "ruzgar" means "time," but translators in the 1980s interpreted Khomeini's words as a metaphorical reference to a "map"--an interpretation that stuck when Ahmadinejad substituted "sahneh" for "safheh," or "page." But the Cole-Steele-Norouzi trio recommends the literal translation of "page of time" (MEMRI, for its part, went with "pages of history"). Steele claims that the "page of time" phrase, along with the rest of his translation, suggests that the Iranian president was expressing a desire for an end to Israeli occupation at some point in the future. "He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem," Steele writes."
So, Steele thinks the interpreters did a bad job in interpreting the Iranian president's words.
In another article, the alternate translation is "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”
So, using inductive reason, let's see... occupation regime over Jerusalem are who? Jewish people (not Arabs nor English nor Latinos... Jewish people)
Must vanish... well, we all know people don't disappear for no reason. Something is done to make people disappear, hmm? So, using inductive reasoning, one can logically assume that Iran wants to help the occupation regime over Jerusalem to "vanish", because we all know people don't just disappear. Disappear, by the way, = vanish.
"from the arena of time" Wow that's actually stronger than "off the face of the earth" because vanishing from time means that nobody in the future will remember them, which means erasing them from the history books (though the truth of them existing actually cannot be erased, since God knows everything)
So, one can use inductive reasoning to assume that Iran wants to wipe Jewish people off the face of the earth. Which Jewish people? From the time I have been on this forum and through my question on this thread, I have learned that some Muslims hate "Zionists" or the Israeli "regime" and all other Jewish people are not included in this hatred. Is this correct? So, the ones the Iranian president thinks "must vanish" are the Jewish people who make up the nation of Israel.
Now, if you wish to respond, please kindly read the following article, and instead of insulting it, please kindly use logic and refutations (including articles) to refute it if it is indeed not true. Otherwise, this is the last time I will write to you.
Please check out the link in the following paragraph quoted from the online article: (You can find this article at http://www.washingto...JIKML_blog.html
" But the story doesn’t end there. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum
of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs
of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English."
Please read Joshua Teitelbaum's article and refute it, without using insults (it does not take intelligence, maturity, or integrity to insult someone or something) in order to refute his points. You may find the link to his article here
If you do not respond to my challenge of refuting Joshua Teitelbaum's article courtesy and with valid refutations, I will no longer write you.
Peace and God bless you
aliasghark, on 07 February 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:
Can it be that your assumption is not true? Maybe ali is not threatened by you? Maybe he feels your narrow-mindedness is a sign of your being a missionary?
Maybe you have never met a missionary? I have. Missionaries say " Would you like to be saved? Do you know where you will go when you die? Pray the sinner's prayer...." These are kinds of things missionaries say.
I am an apologist. An apologist doesn't ask you if you would like to be saved. Why? Because apologists are defending what they believe, not trying to get another person to believe the same. Apologists do not defend what they believe to get people converted, but rather because they enjoy engaging in interfaith discussion. It is remarkably difficult to have an interfaith discussion and defend one's beliefs if everyone believes the same,
hmm? Have you ever tried playing chess if both sides were on the same team? Why does that not work? An apologist cannot defend if there is not an opposing side.
As for your accusation of me being "narrowminded", I actually have learned a lot on this forum, whereas many Americans don't feel the desire to learn from Muslims.
Anyways, the next time I write you, it will be to answer your refutation concerning Joshua Teiteibaum's article. I hope you take the challenge. If not, I understand why.
Peace and God bless you
Edited by Christianlady, 07 February 2012 - 10:18 AM.