@Miwojedk#1932 Your sources do not dispute what I said at all.
Literally the first paragraph of my first source
I have heard a lot of Muslims say “I swear on my children that .. ” or ” I swear on my mother .. “. According to Islam, it is unlawful to take an oath by anyone except Allah (SWT). You can only swear by Allah. So, if you want to take an oath by something then take an oath by Allah (“I swear by Allah” or “wallahi” or “wallahi”).
@redeastwood#1934 And hence we come full circle because "Swearing (making an oath) =/= making a religious oath."
@Miwojedk#1957 Swearing (making an oath) is not permitted. Religious oaths are only to be made by sane individuals (adults). So either way, no oaths can be made.
I don’t understand what you’re not getting here.
@redeastwood#1919 Many religions frown upon swearing to God or before a deity which is irrelevant to my post because the appeal in question does not require that an applicant swear before a deity, however "swear to never do whatever you did again."
Based on this using the Prophet, his family, or others for the purposes of affirming speech as in the question wherein actual oaths is a legally permitted matter in which there is nothing wrong due to its being mentioned in the speech of the Prophet and his Companions as well as the people’s custom adopting it in a way that is not counter to the legal tradition. It is not forbidden or an act of associating partners with God and Muslims do not need to make allegations about God without knowledge.
In addition, the sources you linked do not justify your argument rather solidify my critique of his complete refusal to swear, regardless of that which he swears upon, adherence to this server's policies going forward. If "it is unlawful to take an oath by anyone except Allah" then nothing would be preventing him from taking an oath to "swear to never do whatever you did again" by his higher power according to the literature which you have included in your reply.
Allaah will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masaakeen (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allaah makes clear to you His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) that you may be grateful.
In response to your final statement:
you have assumed that every religion has the same laws of taking oaths.
This is false, and an intellectually dishonest method of discrediting my original post without providing any real substance to that effect. As the ban appeal asks for no oath to be taken on behalf of one's child, or parent, the potential for that oath to be taken before a deity would not be in vain according to the scriptural context you've put forward. Entertaining the falsehood, would it not be haram to go forth with such disregard for the laws of a community and typical authority as exercised by its members, the reasoning behind our original poster's punishment to begin with?
For those who do not wish to read this post of mine, in short, the objection stands along with my original critique.
@redeastwood#1928 Swearing to/on someone is what I'm talking about here - not a religious oath.
Neither a religious oath nor the act of swearing to/on someone is requested by the ban appeal template, making this scriptural argument ultimately irrelevant to the matter of Ashaz's sincerity in his original post.
@fssp#1966 So from all of this, it still stands that Ashaz is unable to swear on something casually as it is frowned upon, and also unable to swear (take an oath) as he is not a "sane individual" yet.
Boiling down your long post the only new information you've added is that the application doesn't call for any oath on anyone - however that is your interpretation of the word "swear". Personally, I would take that as a casual oath (something which is frowned upon in Islam). So it is perfectly fine for Ashaz to not want to swear. Instead they have promised, and according to what you've said, a promise should be sufficient. Your issue was that they didn't "swear" and you think they made a "joke about god", which simply isn't true.
@fssp#1968 Neither a religious oath nor the act of swearing to/on someone is requested by the ban appeal template
@Luke#1634 and swear to never do whatever you did again
You can interpret the template as you please, but the word swear does have connotations of an oath and bounding agreement - therefor making it completely valid for Ashaz to be unwilling to swear.
@fssp#1966 This is false, and an intellectually dishonest method of discrediting my original post without providing any real substance to that effect.
It isn't false because in Islam it is frowned upon to "swear to something". You assumed it wasn't.
I'm going to leave it at that as this argument has already taken up enough of my time, and yours too.
Still standing by my opinion that he shouldn’t have been banned, or even for as long as he was, because it’s obvious he wasn’t maliciously impersonating, and the rank colors exist to differentiate between this.
@SupItsDillon#1979 He was banned for impersonating, and the length of the ban was due to the vast quantity of previous offences that had been committed. It wasn't a first second or third time he'd been banned just since I took over as owner...
Object
object. the ban has been nowhere near long enough, given the amount of times they've been banned.
Vouch, impersonation is litterly the most minor thing possible on discord
@redeastwood#1969 Except that you're conflating the meaning of "swearing" upon a deity or higher power with the contemporary usage of "swear" as a social transaction of undertaking to comply with a particular set of rules, the second context being that which this appeal requests of applicants. The word "swear" varies between blind affirmation and the act of "swearing by" to the casual taking of a promise to the effect of good conduct.
You can interpret the template as you please, but the word swear does have connotations of an oath and bounding agreement - therefor making it completely valid for Ashaz to be unwilling to swear.
By this logic, any word with the partial connotation of a meaning irrelevant to the context in which it is being used would be unlawful? I fail to see how this train of reasoning applies to the majority of the English language nor does it align in good faith with the scripture that has been quoted, demonstrating the grounds you've referenced.
On another note, ending any post with "I'm going to leave it here" is futile because it's always "left there" until somebody replies to that post.
@fssp#2030 Except that you're conflating the meaning of "swearing" upon a deity or higher power with the contemporary usage of "swear" as a social transaction of undertaking to comply with a particular set of rules, the second context being that which this appeal requests of applicants. The word "swear" varies between blind affirmation and the act of "swearing by" to the casual taking of a promise to the effect of good conduct.
I have made it very clear that this is what I was doing - and rightfully so. For the seventh time, interpret the word as you wish, not everybody thinks like you. The fact that you are arguing over how someone could perceive a word is shocking, especially since the word "swear" has connotations that are much more grounded than other "partial connotations" you mentioned. The US president literally has a swearing in ceremony, where they say that they solemnly swear.
As for leaving this here, I meant that I was not going to respond any more as this useless argument was taking too much of my time, especially since you fail to see any rhyme or reason that isn’t your own.
@redeastwood#2038 And "interpreting the word as I wish" was accomplished by my original post, in which I interpreted the ban appeal's usage of the word "swear" to imply a casual agreement of conduct with our server's rules, which is the obvious usage of the word, because to act as if appealing a ban from a video game server necessitates an unbroken vow of allegiance is foolish. It is equally foolish to compare the usage of the word "swear" as a social contract for a ban appeal, serving the purpose of gathering a player's intentions, to the swearing in of the President of the United States. Made me laugh, though.
I meant that I was not going to respond any more as this useless argument was taking too much of my time.
...though you did respond, thus demonstrating my point that pledging to no longer respond in a linear discussion is useless. There would be no need to respond until the recipient posts a reply, and after I did post a reply, you posted a response.
@fssp#2099 if appealing a ban from a video game server necessitates an unbroken vow of allegiance is foolish. It is equally foolish to compare the usage of the word "swear" as a social contract for a ban appeal, serving the purpose of gathering a player's intentions, to the swearing in of the President of the United States. Made me laugh, though.
God it’s like talking to a cardboard box - the point I was trying to make here is that the word "swear" can be interpreted in different ways, and Ashaz interpreted it in a way different to you. That’s all this is. You said that the word "swear" only had partial connotations of an oath - and I disproved it by saying that one of the most important jobs in the world (US President) requires the president elect to "swear in". This proves that the word "swear" does have strong connotations of taking an oath. Just because someone interprets something different to you doesn’t mean it’s foolish. You are making this argument unnecessarily long by nit-picking what I say and refusing to actually understand my point.
Luke is right, this is a silly conversation especially since we keep going in circles. I don’t expect further replies regarding this matter, as in my eyes it has been dealt with.
RedEastWood You said that the word "swear" only had partial connotations of an oath - and I disproved it by saying that one of the most important jobs in the world (US President) requires the president elect to "swear in".
The word "swear" only carries the partial connotation of an oath because the word has a meaning, that meaning being the one referenced in this appeal's template, of a transactionary agreement to conform with a set of given rules, or more broadly, an agreement to which one "swears." You're not disproving this by providing an example of the same word being used in a different context; in etymology, it is widely understood that words carry more than one meaning. I understand the angle you've detailed, and have rejected it out of being immaterial to the ultimate matter of the applicant's intent on conforming to our rules, something which has yet to be answered.
Luke is right, this is a silly conversation especially since we keep going in circles.
This is correct: you're not going to change my opinion on the matter, just as I do not expect to sway yours: I stand by my original post.
Luke It was the truth and as far as I know, I cannot swear in Islam. I thank Red for taking his time out and researching into it, as he’s doing a lot for me.
I find it increasingly likely that You! has misunderstood the purpose behind this ban appeal's template: it is not to ensure a solemn undertaking of conduct with our rules, however act as a question of the applicant's sincerity in understanding the gravity of their actions, or make clear that they disagree with the punishment taken against them. To skip the question purely because the word "swear" is used to describe this transaction, and one's faith condemns the act of "swearing" with regard to the word's historical meaning, seems rather semantic and should at least substitute that agreement with one in accordance (with) their own interpretation or religious practice.
Locked and denied as withdrawn
