Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Dhimmitude is against oppression? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444 Message started by freediver on Sep 1st, 2018 at 12:57am |
Title: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 1st, 2018 at 12:57am
Keep polishing that turd:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2018 at 2:03pm:
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 1st, 2018 at 3:30pm
part of what was written by the humble Hasan al Kafrawi, the Shafiite.
Dhimmitude in islam: The Answer Of The Shaikh Hasan Al Kafrawi, The Shafiite [Professor of canon law in Cairo, Praise be to allah, the guide of the right way! The decision given by the Shaikh ar-Ramli [a great Cairo legal authority, d. 1596], by the Shaikh al-Islam [the muslim religious authority in Constantinople], and by the learned scholars whose decrees can hardly be written down here, may be worded as follows: "It is forbidden to the tolerated peoples living on muslim territory to clothe themselves in the same manner as the chiefs, the scholars, and the nobles. They should not be allowed to clothe themselves in costly fabrics which have been cut in the modes which are forbidden to them, in order that they may not offend the sensibilities of poor muslims and in order that their faith in their religion should not be shaken by this. [Poor muslims may regret their faith when they see how well-dressed the Christians and Jews are.] "They should not be permitted to employ mounts like the muslims. They must use neither saddles, nor iron-stirrups, in order to be distinguished from the true believers. They must under no circumstance ride horses because of the noble character of this animal. The most-high has said [qu'ran 8:62]: 'And through powerful squadrons [of horses] through which you will strike terror into your own and allah's enemies.'[A verse of the qu'ran makes a good support for a law. Verses may even be torn out of their context.] "They should not be permitted to take muslims into their service because allah has glorified the people of islam. he has given them his aid and has given them a guarantee by these words [qu'ran 3:140]: 'Surely allah will never give preeminence to unbelievers over the true believers.' Now this is just what is happening today, for their servants are muslims taken from among men of a mature age or from those who are still young. This is one of the greatest scandals to which the guardians of authority must put an end. It is wrong to greet them even with a simple 'how-do-you-do'; to serve them, even for wages, at the baths or in what relates to their riding animals; and it is forbidden to accept anything from their hand, for that would be an act of debasement by the faithful. They are forbidden while going through the streets to ape the manners of the muslims, and still less those of the cities of the religion. They shall only walk single-file, and in narrow lanes they must withdraw even more into the most cramped part of the road. "One may read that which follows in Bukhari and muslim [religious authorities of the ninth century]: 'Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting; if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.' The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a muslim is present. This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers. They should under no circumstances acquire muslim slaves, white or black. Therefore they should get rid of the slaves which they now have for the), have no right to own them. If one of their slaves who was formerly an infidel, becomes a muslim, he shall be removed from them, and his master, willingly or unwillingly, shall be compelled to sell him and to accept the price for him. "It is no longer permitted them to put themselves, with respect to their houses, on an equal footing with the dwellings of their muslim neighbors, and still less to build their buildings higher. If they are of the same height, or higher, it is incumbent upon us to pull them down to a size a little less than the houses of the true believers. This conforms to the word of the prophet: 'islam rules, and nothing shall raise itself above it.' This is also in order to hinder them from knowing where our weak spots are and in order to make a distinction between their dwellings and ours. "They are forbidden to build new churches, chapels, or monasteries in any muslim land. We should destroy everything that is of new construction in every place, founded under the muslim religion, for it is said in a tradition of Umar: 'No church shall be built in islam.' They shall no longer be permitted to repair the parts of these [post-islamic] buildings which are in ruins. However, the old buildings [of pre-islamic times] which are found in a land whose population had embraced islam need not be destroyed. They shall not, however, be enlarged by means of repairs or otherwise. In case the tolerated peoples [Jews, Christians, etc.] act contrary to these provisions we will be obliged to destroy everything that has been added to the original size of the building. [Only pre-islamic churches and synagogues may be repaired; new ones must be torn down.] |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Yadda on Sep 1st, 2018 at 5:40pm
The gandalf piece, quoted in the OP,
....that is something worthy of Karnal. ;D Pure sophistry and lies. Quote:
Moslems are the masters at writing history [i.e. their history], AFTER THE FACT. . QUESTION; Whatever happened to the majority Buddhist population in Afghanistan, that were there, pre the ISLAMIC invasion and takeover of that land? Quote:
the link is old, but the article is kosher Many devout moslems have a unique 'perspective' on 'truth' and truthfulness. e.g. 'Facts' which serve ISLAM's interests [i.e. expanding the influence of ISLAM] are always true. Whereas those facts which portray ISLAMIC culture in a poor light, are almost always portrayed as 'insulting' infidel lies. . Whenever moslems write accounts of history, it has been shown time and time again, that moslems will shamelessly fabricate the 'history' of some past circumstance or event, so as to favour some current moslem interest. And these false historical accounts which moslems 'produce' as evidence, invariably always portray moslems, in their current conflicts [with their enemies], as correct/virtuous/or as victims of injustice. e.g. Quote:
the link is old, but the article is kosher Quote:
the link is old, but the article is kosher n.b. And just look how moslems respond, whenever additional, independent historic sources, contradict the moslem 'narrative' of 'their' history.... ".....descriptions of the Jewish Temples in the Hebrew Tanach, in the Talmud and in Byzantine and Roman writings from the Temple periods were forged,...." Oh, but of course they were! :D . "ISLAM ES PAZ" IMAGE..... Everyone knows that true ISLAM, is a religion of peace. /sarc off |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 1st, 2018 at 5:49pm
Maybe we should treat Muslims as dhimmis for their own protection. Wear a crescent on their clothes to identify themselves, make them pay extra tax, make sure they always give way to the kuffar on the streets and forbid them to publicly speak about Islam or build any mosques.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by issuevoter on Sep 1st, 2018 at 5:51pm
Everything Gandalf writes is a desperate attempt to justify his stupid decision to "convert." (Whatever convert means.) He is no different than David Hicks, and should never be forgiven for supporting our enemies.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Brian Ross on Sep 1st, 2018 at 6:04pm Frank wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 5:49pm:
Obviously learnt a lot from your superior culture, now haven't you, Soren? Do you want us all to wear nice black uniforms with nice red armbands with a crooked cross emblazoned on them? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::) |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 1st, 2018 at 6:08pm Brian Ross wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 6:04pm:
What do you think Brian, do you agree with what Gandalf said about Dhimmitude? Or do you think he is polishing a turd? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 1st, 2018 at 8:00pm Frank wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 5:49pm:
Here's your new signature, G. And remember, it's for their own good. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 1st, 2018 at 10:18pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 8:00pm:
Gandalf the agit-prop convert proposed that dhimmitude was instituted by Muslims to protect theitr 'minorities', turd-eater. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 1st, 2018 at 10:22pm freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 6:08pm:
I think Gandalf is sugar coating that turd |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 1st, 2018 at 11:30pm Frank wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 10:18pm:
It's a pretty accepted point of view. I myself have no idea. You have always absolutely never ever and Eternal, so who's more likely to be correct? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 1st, 2018 at 11:51pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 10:22pm:
Do you now? Quote:
Similar principles applied in many ancient empires, including Rome, where citizenship applied only to Romans with various rights, powers - and taxes - applying to non-citizens. The issue here was how to apply a rule of law within a civilisation that housed people of different faiths, rules and laws. Dhimmi means "protected", and is generally understood to have been a fair system. Quote:
Protecting minorities is correct. It's literally what Dhimmi means. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Yadda on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 8:01am @ Reply #11, Yeah, and ISLAM is a benign and tolerant faith. /sarc off REBUTTED; Quote:
LIES - and totally without any Koranic authority - the PRIMARY source of all authority for ISLAMIC doctrine towards disbelievers. . REBUTTED; Quote:
LIES - and totally without any Koranic authority - the PRIMARY source of all authority for ISLAMIC doctrine towards disbelievers. Dhimmihood [wherever it was implemented], was simply a path of cultural humiliation and oppression, which gradually moved towards the cultural annihilation, of the 'other'. . REBUTTED; Quote:
LIES - and totally without any Koranic authority - the PRIMARY source of all authority for ISLAMIC doctrine towards disbelievers. . ARGUMENT; ISLAM's principle and PRIMARY source of inspiration and authority for ISLAMIC doctrine [the Koran, whose words, all moslems attribute as coming straight from Allah's lips], commands every 'authentic' moslem, to shun and to hate, to fight and to kill [or enslave], those who are not moslems. . ARGUMENT; Yadda said.... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17 Quote:
The Koran plainly commands the followers of ISLAM, that it is their religious duty to harbour "enmity and hatred for ever" towards disbelievers "unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone" e.g. Koran 60:4 The Koran plainly commands the followers of ISLAM, that it is their religious duty, "for the Cause of Allah", to participate fighting, to kill disbelievers [or, to support those who do fight] e.g. Koran 9.29, Koran 9.123, Koran 9.111 Google; "Whosoever dies without participating in an expedition (jihad) nor having the intention to do so, dies on a branch of hypocrisy" - quoting ISLAMIC scripture, urging the believer to join the fight The Koran plainly commands the followers of ISLAM, that it is A CAPITAL CRIME to love anyone, who is a disbeliever. "...Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers." e.g. Koran 58.22, Koran 9.23, Koran 5.51, Koran 48.29 Allah's Koran does not give the moslem, any religiously authoritative or legal leeway, in his attitude of hatred, and his lawful authority to hate and to oppress the disbeliever. . "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." Koran 9.123 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves....." Koran 48.29 |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 8:05am Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 11:51pm:
Protecting minorities is correct. It's literally what Dhimmi means. [/quote] Muhammad committed genocide against the Jewish community of Medina. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 12:24pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 8:05am:
Muhammad committed genocide against the Jewish community of Medina.[/quote] Oh, I know. Source: the Wiki. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 3:05pm |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 3:41pm |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 3:51pm
Exactly, but continuos lies about how marvelous and victimized islam is, will not fix the problem.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:09pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 12:24pm:
Oh, I know. Source: the Wiki. [/quote] Yeah, sorry, committed jihad. Muslims killing large number of people for Allah has nuffin to do wiv genocide or terrorism. Is rightous self-defence innit. Not submitting to islam is rewarded with jihad in self-defence. Ask your mates, Paki, they never heard of muslim terrorism. That the koran says they have to kill all the jews for world peace is just spiritual thriving. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:26pm Quote:
I'll leave that to you Effendi. All I know is how Israel treats its Arab citizens as less worthy/equal than Jewish citizens, and it's appalling behaviour against Arab Gaza. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:34pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:26pm:
Would it be fair to say that the worst example you can come up with that supports your point, whatever it is, is better than the best example of any past or present Muslim nation you can present? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:48pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:34pm:
My point is simple Effendi. Israel has two classes of citizenship, and the distinction is 'tribally' discriminatory.....Arab/Jew. Further, not even a dribbling imbecile would regard Israel's treatment of Gaza/Gazans as anything other than appalling. I have not even looked for 'worst examples.' As I said, I'll leave that to you. Here is a simple question for you Effendi......which is worse ~ a person who slays 10 people or one who slays 15? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:56pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 4:48pm:
This is a thread about Dhimmitude, and Gandalf's claim that it is against oppression. If the worst non-Muslim example you can give is better than the best example of a Muslim nation you can give, then you have made my point for me. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:02pm
'Atta boy, Effendi. Run away (just as you accuse others of doing, including me.)
Here is a simple question for you Effendi......which is worse ~ a person who slays 10 people or one who slays 15? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:21pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 11:51pm:
From your link Quote:
What does this verse from the Quran they cited mean Mr paki stain? Quote:
Does Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy command muslims to fight non muslims until they convert to Islam or pay protection money called the Jizya? The Mafia and Islam are the only cults that require people to pay protection money |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:47pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:02pm:
Do you have a relevant point to make? Or are you just saying, hey everyone, look over there! Gah! Israel! OK, it may not be as bad as any Muslim nation in the entire history of Muslim nations, but you should still pay more attention to it.... |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:55pm
Effendi...really.......
Here is a simple question for you Effendi......which is worse ~ a person who slays 10 people or one who slays 15? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:56pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:55pm:
Am I person number 9, or person number 11? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:58pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:56pm:
I have no idea. Here is a simple question for you Effendi......which is worse ~ a person who slays 10 people or one who slays 15? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:13pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:58pm:
If you are number 9, I guess it would not make much difference, but if you are number 11, the former would be preferable. What is your answer Aussie? Is it "hey everyone, look over there!"? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:18pm
Sorry to get all school playground about this, but I did ask first, and if I could be arsed, I could check back and find zillions of questions you have been asked which you just ignore....so.......if that is good enough for you, it is good enough for everyone.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:20pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:47pm:
Is this tangent in any way relevant Aussie, or are you just trying to change the topic away from Gandalf's deceptive claims about Dhimmitude? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:25pm
You start answering questions Members put to you, and I'll resume answering yours.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:37pm
So that's a no eh? Totally irrelevant?
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Aussie on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:44pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:37pm:
It is literally this: You start answering questions Members put to you, and I'll resume answering yours. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 7:05pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:25pm:
Here's another one, FD. Evasive Muslim apologist. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 7:31pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 5:21pm:
Does Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy command muslims to fight non muslims until they convert to Islam or pay protection money called the Jizya? The Mafia and Islam are the only cults that require people to pay protection money[/quote] I'm not really sure what you're asking me, dear. As I understand it, jizya is a price for protection - this is literally what it means. Armies, city walls, wells and fortresses along trade routes cost money. Zakat, or alms, is considered charity to other Muslims (and Muslim rulers and administrators). Civilisation, you see, has its discontents. From what I can see, these terms were encoded as forms of taxation in the Islamic Caliphates. Jizzya - non-Muslims. Zakat - Muslims. This was the price for varying forms of rights within the state. Was it sinister? Cunning? Hideously diabolical? I can't say. "Render unto Caesar" wasn't the most popular thing our prophet Yeheshua said either, but He did say He came not to bring peace, but a sword. These terms are, at best, administrative. Yes, the cost of maintaining the peace is most definitely an ethical one, but remember that we are, essentially, discussing ancient terms of urban planning and taxation. Paki-style. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 7:49pm
These examples are intended to indicate the general character of a system of oppression, sanctioned by contempt and justified by the principle of inequality between Muslims and dhimmis…Singled out as objects of hatred and contempt by visible signs of discrimination, they were progressively decimated during periods of massacres, forced conversions, and banishments. Sometimes it was the prosperity they had achieved through their labor or ability that aroused jealousy; oppressed and stripped of all their goods, the dhimmi often emigrated.”
…in many places and at many periods [through] the nineteenth century, observers have described the wearing of discriminatory clothing, the rejection of dhimmi testimony, the prohibitions concerning places of worship and the riding of animals, as well as fiscal charges- particularly the protection charges levied by nomad chiefs- and the payment of the jizya…Not only was the dhimma imposed almost continuously, for one finds it being applied in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire…and in Persia, the Maghreb, and Yemen in the early twentieth century, but other additional abuses, not written into the laws, became absorbed into custom, such as the devshirme, the degrading corvees (as hangmen or gravediggers), the abduction of Jewish orphans (Yemen), the compulsory removal of footware (Morocco, Yemen), and other humiliations…The recording in multiple sources of eye-witness accounts, concerning unvarying regulations affecting the Peoples of the Book, perpetuated over the centuries from one end of the dar al-Islam to the other…proves sufficiently their entrenchment in customs. https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3223&sec_id=3223">Dhimmitude%20and%20The%20Doyen https://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Stop_the_Jizyah/ |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 9:55pm Aussie wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 6:44pm:
Was there something wrong with my last answer Aussie? Or would you rather take this full circle and turn it into an argument over who answered what question than criticise Islam or a Muslim? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 11:19pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 9:55pm:
He's got you there, Aussie. Was there something wrong with FD's last answer? You'll find it if you do a search. In 2007. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:40am Frank wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 7:49pm:
And I have no doubt minorities within the Caliphates - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - had beefs with imperial rule. We all do, dear. But this demonstrates the importance of a rule of law. The Afghani state today offers all citizens dhimmi, or protection, but as we all know, it can't possibly provide this. It competes with warlords and organised crime bosses. It has no teeth. The entire purpose of Muhammad's theocracy, if you believe Moh, was to remove these obstacles to the peace. Muhammed was a trader - he travelled. He would have heard how things functioned under the Pax Romana. The intention of this model was to establish basic security, and much of the Quran can be read in this light. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:50am Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:40am:
Yeah, just like women are made second class, covered and constrained for their own protection and because Mohammed was a trader and peace envoy. Polytheists murdered for peace and their own protection. The whole religion of peace hooey is utter nonsense and you swallow it almost as eagerly as the other crap you do. You may like your intelligence insulted and be taken for a complete fool by muslim propaganda - and you are not alone- but sanity and historical understanding and awareness are not yet obliterated entirely by the efforts of the education system. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 10:10am Frank wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:50am:
But of course. We're discussing the 7th century. Even in 19th century Australia, Aboriginals were not allowed to testify in court because they were considered pagans. So I'm curious. Are you able to have a rational discussion about history? Why or why not? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 10:51am freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2018 at 12:57am:
I suppose I am - in the sense that I am rationalising the concept of "oppression" in medieval society. Obviously they would be considered "oppressed" by today's standards - as was the case with minorities in every western society in that time. Yet the fact remains, enshrining in law the rights and protections of non-muslims is intuitively the very opposite of oppression. Obviously it is more complicated than that, and yes dhimmis suffered the occasional pogrom (as did pretty much every ethnic/religious minority in medieval society). However the proof is in the pudding - non-muslim communities all across the Caliphate (in all its various forms), undeniably thrived culturally and scientifically, and contributed greatly to the scientific flowering of the Islamic Golden Age. And when the Spanish reconquered the Iberian peninsular and ethnically cleansed all the jews - where did they go for refuge? The Ottoman empire. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:52pm Quote:
Prior to Muhammad's Caliphate, Greece, Rome and Carthage were developing models of democratic government. At the same time as the Caliphate, Europe gradually wound back slavery and then serfdom. Quote:
Would you mind explaining the laws and rights of pagans under Muhammad's Caliphate for us? Convert or die, wasn't it? Quote:
I deny it. Most of the claims to science and maths were appropriated from other places and times. For such a powerful and long lived empire, the real contributions are few and meagre. Islam destroyed cultures. Where previously Jews, Christians and Pagans lived side by side, Muhammad created an oppressive monoculture. Economically, Islam locked almost all of western civilisation into the post-Roman apocalypse. Under the Caliphate's reign, the Chinese became better off than westerners for the first time in the history of human civilisation. The Caliphate never improved living standards significantly, always remaining far behind Roman standards, which you like to offer feeble excuses for. It was not until the European fringe of western civilisation began developing again - despite, not because of the Caliphate - that development surpassed the Romans. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:56pm freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 8:05am:
Muhammad committed genocide against the Jewish community of Medina.[/quote] Were the Jews a threat to the Muslims? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:58pm freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:52pm:
Does that include the Sassanians? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:59pm Auggie wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:58pm:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/heavy-legacies-our-past.html#measuring |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:10pm freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:52pm:
Way to whitewash history FD. The Caliphate was the first society to codify in law legal rights and protections of religious/ethnic minorities. In Christian Europe, with the exception of the jews, non-christians were literally slaughtered or force-converted out of existence. And the jews suffered a miserable lot most of the time. As I said before, jews fleeing the ethnic cleansing of the Iberian peninsular fled to the Ottoman Empire. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:12pm freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:59pm:
Ok, so you failed to mention Persia in all of this. Despite being Islamic, did Iran develop into a modern secular democracy? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:34pm
what about Cordoba?
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:42pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:34pm:
We'll get an answer at some point. FD is scurrying to his go-to person to find out how to answer our questions. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 10:25pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:10pm:
Other than converting or dying, what rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? How many pagans did Muhammad leave behind in the pagan Mecca of Mecca? Auggie wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:12pm:
It's doing better than most Muslim nations. Obviously "modern" and "secular" depend on what you compare it to. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 10:28pm Auggie wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 8:42pm:
Abu? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:15am freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 10:25pm:
I deny your narrative about Islam and its zero tolerance for paganism but fine, lets say for arguments sake Muhammad and Islam had a zero tolerance attitude to the tiny number of pagans they encountered. You are then left with the inconvenient truth that Christian Europe undeniably also had a zero tolerance attitude to the far greater population of pagans under their rule. Pagans were mass slaughtered or force-converted out of existence in Christian Europe in pretty short order. That is a fact. So at worst, Muhammad and Islam was no better and no worse than Christian Europe on that front (pagans). So lets get back to your previous attempts to draw a moral comparison between Christian Europe and the Caliphate - you know, how Europe was abolishing slavery (interestingly an abolition that occurred a few centuries before embarking on the greatest slave trade the world has ever known, but anyway) and winding back serfdom. Apparently this was somehow disproving my point about the relative good treatment that dhimis received. Relevant points you failed to address though include: - the fact that the caliphate was the only society to codify in law the legal rights and protections of ethnic and religious minorities - the undeniably better existence minorities experienced under the caliphate than under Christianity - including, ironically, many christian sects - the undeniable fact that, despite your baseless revisionism, christian and jewish communities in the caliphate experienced cultural and scientific flowering during the Islamic golden age - the fact that jews from the Iberian peninsula sought and found refuge in the Ottoman Empire when they were ethnically cleansed by Christian conquerers |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:04am
The problem in 2018 is not what Islam did or was in the pasy but what it is now.
One of the huge problems with Islam now is that it's harking back to the past as the Golden Age. You, gandalf, say for example, that the caliphate codified the status of non-Muslims and that such minorities as the Jews flourished under the caliphate and often preferred it to Christian jurisdictions. You always point back at the past even though no Muslim countries and especially not Muslim Arab countries are thriving to regain or re-create what may have been positive in the pat. Quite the opposite - they are cleansing their territories of minorities, either actively or by turning a blind eye to Muslim atrocities against non-Muslims. Very tellingly, Muslims mobs are not motivated by the supposed tolerance of Islam or the examples of the benign past. they are vicious mobs in the name of Islam and it's past glories and conquests and the ideology of the Koran and their imams glorifying not Islamic tolerance but Islamic supremacist conquests and over-lordship. In short, Muslim regimes today are not informed by your distorted, selective, rose-coloured propaganda about Islam's past. They are taking their cues from the much more realistic understanding of that past and are continuing with Islamic supremacy, exclusivity and ruthless subjugation. Just as there are no jokes in Islam, nor is 'multiculturalism'. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:38am Frank wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:04am:
Agreed - yet the fact is its the FD's and Moses' here who obsess over the history of Islam (particularly the behaviour of The Prophet), in order to construct a narrative focused squarely on proving that Islam is unreformable and unsalvagable. It sucked in its beginning, its sucked throughout its history - therefore it can only ever suck in the future. It is not, therefore, a mere academic debating point. It is a specific tool on which muslims are judged now and forever into the future. It is deeply sinister, and is a powerful weapon to demonize the majority of muslims who mind their own business and do nothing wrong. You follow a sinister prophet, believe in a religion that has done nothing but destroy and hate - therefore *YOU* are nothing but sinister and bad - even if I see no evidence of you specifically being sinister and bad. FD's method is to "talk to muslims" - by which I mean interrogate them with his tricky gotcha questions that he can link directly to the behaviour of their sinister prophet. Its actually quite scary how obsessed FD is with linking contemporary muslim behaviour with his version of how early 7th century arab society was. Yes *OBVIOUSLY* the behaviour of contemporary muslims, and especially the predominance of backward and oppressive regimes that exist in the muslim world today isn't a good selling point for Islam. I get that. But it is ridiculously unfair to contextualise this behaviour solely within a slanted and far too simplistic mickey mouse version of Islamic History whose overall conclusion is that Islam is bad, always has been bad and always will be bad - while ignoring all other contemporary contexts. It not only rejects muslims as deserving of any cultural heritage to be proud of, more importantly, it dismisses them of having any sort of future to strive for. Why is this important? Because it is an excuse to discriminate and persecute them. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:44am Frank wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:04am:
Yes, old boy, but what happened to Eternal? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:51am polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:38am:
Oh, the old boy knows all that, G. It's the old boy's duty to discriminate and persecute them. These people are tinted. FD's method is to "talk to Muslims". Moses' method is to berate them into killing the apologists. The old boy's method? Carpetbomb them. He means this in the nicest possible way. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 12:22pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:38am:
History is important. Today is made of yesterday. It's not identical to yesterday but comes from it. So what part history plays in thinking and action today is important. And that is my point - the view and use of history by Muslims. There is a very important difference between how history and life are viewed by the West and Islam because of the very fundamental difference between Christianity/Judaism on the one hand and Islam on the other. The fundamental, Ur-mentality of Islam is unknowable Allah and the unchanging, eternal and final word that is the Koran and compliance with it. The endless, minute laws and rules of everyday life are evidence of Islam's fixation of deontology precisely because of its fixation of the eternal, unchangeable and unknowable. For Christianity a goal, a teleology is the Ur-mentality and so thriving, change and unfolding are fundamental movements of the mind. Your split mentality is evident as you are a convert who grew up with seeing the world teleologically (telos - goal) but must now see it deontologically (deon = duty) and you cannot reconcile them because they are opposite ways of looking and seeing. And so when Muslims talk about history and its role in their lives it is always about 'how good it was back then when it was all revealed and fresh and energising and they all followed the rules and why can't we be like they used to be'. Others in dialogue with Muslims see that and try to show you that your history wasn't that wonderful and following the rules of Islam wasn't that rosy. The other thing they need to tell you and which I am telling you,is that you Muslims must have an outlook for the future - and not the same outlook that your Muslim forerunners had: conquest and world domination and universal submission in this world. But, of course, that is the only aim of Islam, not having any sense of moral or aesthetic or transcendental unfolding for the goals (telos) of good, true and beautiful. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 4th, 2018 at 1:16pm
Thanks Frank, that was a good read. You clearly have some interesting insights, and its especially refreshing to hear them without the usual personal abuse.
For what its worth, I think its a very good assessment of the mentality of many muslims. Suffice to say, I don't think it describes me. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 4th, 2018 at 3:22pm
gandalf wrote: Reply #57 - Today at 11:38am
Quote:
The behaviour of muhammad? A thief liar pedophile rapist torturer and mass murderer, revered by muslims as the best example for mankind. (and you wonder why you've got problems.) muslims have no hope of any real solution to their troubles until they are honest about muhammad and the evil in the qur'an. Stop all the excuses gandi, if you really want to join the 21st century. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 3:34pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 1:16pm:
Ta. Reform and salvaging are things we always talk and disagree about. Something that is fundamentally teleological is reformable because it is about an as-yet unrealised ideal. The redemption of the sinner is a very stark illustration of the idea in a nutshell. Something deontological is fundamentally unreformable in the sense that reform here means nothing more than stricter compliance with a past - eternally perfect - memory. This is where the performative essence of islam lies - you have to do it right in every detail and then you will be a good Muslim. Religions of all kinds were first cyclical because it is our natural experience of life. Time is cyclical as is being and so the great Wheel of Being turns. The Jews straightened out that cycle and made time and the essence of our existence linear, a trajectory away from the eternal return. Christianity, being a 'Jewish superstition' retained this linear, goal-oriented perception of our existence, even as our material bodies remain part of the cycle. That straight line is not AWAY from the cycle but towards its centre, towards that "Love that moves the sun and the other stars", (as an Italian you would know that line). In Islam, it seems to me, there is a confusion, originating with Mohammed and on his authority, all Muslims are locked into that confusion. It is not cyclical, nor is it goal oriented in the sense of God as goal because Allah is fundamentally unknowable, is not a person with whom there can be a relationship that both personal and transcendental. There are Muslim traditions that cultivate the mystical and transcendental but they are treated as heresies and as apostasies. And since free thinking, reformed thinking, new thinking is frowned upon and is punishable, Islam's safe bet of reform - actually, only way of reform - is always to be reactionary and backward looking to some golden past of the prophet's time or when Islam was most expansive (taken as a sign of Allah's approval). It all smacks of medievalism to a Western mind, like the worst kind of reactionary Catholicism or no-brow fundamentalist Protestantism. Islam doesn't have the historical, philosophical, theological or social resources, as Islamic resources, to renew itself. It is suspicious of or outright hostile to borrowing (how can the perfect be improved on by borrowing from the imperfect?). So what it is left with is wishing to return to the way it used to be 'back in the day'. But that's not reform, that's dreamtime. Hence the 'never ever' reformation of Islam, in my view.i. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:20pm freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 10:25pm:
I'm talking about Iran prior to 1978. Why do you think Iran's has evolved differently from the rest of the Arab world? Could it be that its history as an imperial power and the institutions that those powers left in place meant that the society that evolved actually reflected a less tribal form of society? Arabia was very tribal compared to the Iranian plateau which developed a centralised state with coercive institutions that gave it the necessary pre-requisites to become a successful modern nation. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:22pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 1:16pm:
Do you then concede that perhaps you're in the minority, and that understanding of Islam is actually different from the mainstream? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:26pm Frank wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 12:22pm:
You haven't explained why goals (telos) and duties (deon) are opposites, old boy. Islam is not all dualistic (God versus Creation). Sufism is monist. It holds that humans have God within them - that they are made from God, as is all creation. The universe, including all life, activity and consciousness is a manifestation of God's will. This is not about ritualistic duties, or being performative as you so cunningly put it. It's not about pleasing an external God with silly old redundant pieties, as is much religion. It's about a personal experience of the oneness that is God, the great I Am. As a pious and superior old bin-straightener you will, no doubt, find this offensive. You do have that right, you know. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:29pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:26pm:
So, if it's solely about God, K, why does the Quran include laws which govern social and individual behaviour?? What I'm saying is that Islam is a religion AND a political ideology. You seem to be saying that Islam is ONLY a religion. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:41pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:15am:
Great idea Gandalf. Let's get onto that point. Here's an interesting question: Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:54pm Auggie wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:29pm:
Sufism is far from being a political ideology, Auggie. The knucklehead Muslims hate Sufis. All monist faiths have rules. I can't think of a more rule-driven creed, for example, than Buddhism. In the Theravada tradition, monks have 227 rules. Nuns even worse - 311. They include things like getting up - a rising time of 3am, food - one meal a day and no food after midday, beds - no soft mattresses, pillows or luxurious chairs, speech - a whole host of rules and ways to address others, sex - none whatsoever, and that's just the start. While it has lots of rules, the Buddhist monk-hood is far from being a political ideology, but it has its laws, its texts and its hierarchy. It has a clearly defined social contract. I'm not sure what Moh wanted for Islam. Maybe he did intend an imperial political dynasty, I can't say. But if you believe what Moh says in the Quran, this was only ever with the intention of cultivating a personal relationship with God. But, as with all history, the bin-straighteners get their way. I haven't been to Saudi Arabia, so I can't really know, but to me, it sounds like a pretty scary place. It is still a jolly world though. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:59pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:54pm:
Sufism is not Islam; it is a minority interpretation of Islam, and to insist that it is Islam is actually quite ridiculous. Buddhist rules are social or political rules; they're spiritual rules; i.e. don't drink alcohol; don't fornicate with women; don't slander other people etc. Also, Buddha never established a political community, did he? You're falling into the trap of saying that 'all bad ideologies are equally bad'; they're not. Some are worse than others. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:59pm freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:41pm:
Didn't you already ask G that? Didn't like the answer, eh? Fair enough. If you keep asking, maybe he'll change his mind. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 7:01pm Auggie wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:59pm:
Sufis are Muslims, Auggie. Sufism is a branch of Islam. What do you mean by Islam? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 7:04pm Auggie wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:59pm:
Ee-gad, doesn't sound like you've heard much about Muslim rules, Auggie. Sounds almost identical. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 4th, 2018 at 7:47pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 7:04pm:
Except for the 'kill them wherever you find them...' |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 8:35pm Auggie wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 7:47pm:
And what's the bit after the ... again? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 4th, 2018 at 9:41pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 8:35pm:
Good question Karnal. I hope you don't mind me answering. It is followed by: and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 9:55pm freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 9:41pm:
Thanks for the answer, FD. I forgot that part. What's the next verse, after the . ? You don't have to say if you don't want. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 4th, 2018 at 9:57pm |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:02pm freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 9:57pm:
Thanks, FD. That's me asking why you're evading the question. Do you want to answer now? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:11pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:26pm:
You are not up to this, Paki. Telos and deon are not opposites. Two different thing do not mean opposites. The deon of the OT was reshaped (not opposed) by the revised telos of the NT. Christianity is not OPPOSED to the OT. Manifestation of God - not a Muslim idea. Allah is unknowable, the world is not a Book by which you can read him or interpret him or get in touch with him. Allah is radically, essentially unknowable, remote and utterly unapproachable. You cannot have a personal relationship with or experience of Allah. Allah is not a personal god. There is no interpersonal relationship with Allah while the very essence of Judaism and Christianity is just that, a personal relationship with god. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:23pm Frank wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:11pm:
The ideas you referenced are Greek, old boy. Telos is Aristotelian. It's probably the most fundamental trope in Western thought - that, and Plato's essences. St Paul and Moh referenced both. What did you think all that Muslim bowing and praying and submitting was about? Let's ask a Muselman, shall we? Muselmen, answer the question. What is your hideous tinted bowing and praying and submitting about? Answer the old boy's question. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:38pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:23pm:
I told you you are not up to this, Paki. If telos is the most fundamental trope in Western thought - Is it also the most fundamental trope of Islamic thought? No. Well, what IS the most fundamental trope of Islamic thought, Paki? Deon? Insh'allah? Submission (another word for deon)? I keeeeel you (ditto)? Whatever you think it is, it is not the opposite of telos. It's just NOT telos. And so my point is reiterated. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:50pm Frank wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:38pm:
Sorry? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:20pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 10:50pm:
I told you you are not up to this, Paki. You are way too thick. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:46pm Frank wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:20pm:
You're right there, old boy, I'm not even sure what you're saying. You? If you can tell me, I can freely espouse upon your compelling and enigmatic question, Paki-style. I look forward to your sincere reply. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:57pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 11:46pm:
It's in red, highlighted, in font 24. It's a simple question that picks up on what you have introduced to the discussion, viz, fundamental trope. If you do not understand the parameters of your own question then too much shite eating rotting your brain is correct. Or is it, as you no doubt would ask. Say something intelligent if you can or go back to your shite sandwiches. ( now you are in a dilemma, paki) |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 10:35am
Now that's a question, old boy. What is the most fundamental trope of Pakistani thought?
Isn't it. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:21am freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 6:41pm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Rights_of_non-Muslims The caliphate didn't encounter many pagans FD, the christians had done a pretty good job of wiping most of them out. The main pagan stronghold under Islamic control would have been the hindus. I haven't looked much into those societies, but I'm pretty sure you would find laws protecting their religious rights - given that they mostly coexisted peacefully under Islam for several centuries. edit: Quote:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi I'd have to look more into it, but given the tone, I'd be surprised if there weren't specific rights for hindus written into law by the various muslim rulers. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:30pm Quote:
Seriously? Pagans were probably the dominant broad grouping Muhammad encountered. As far as I can tell, it was pagans first, then Jews, then maybe Christians. You are aware that Mecca was a centre for pagan ritual, and the kaaba in particular right? Would you like to have another go at providing a straight answer? Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Quote:
So Islam should only be judged by new standards established after Muhammad died when Muslims encountered a situation where they could not get away with slaughtering pagans at will? What is the Islamic principle behind this? Pretend that Dhimmitude is against oppression when Muslims lack the military strength to oppress, then start the slaughter when you are in a position to do so? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:34pm
It's interesting that all the great Buddhist landmarks - world heritage and UNESCO sites - are only being destroyed and defaced NOW. Statues and temples that have stood for a thousand years - banned, killed, cestereted by ISIS and co.
I blame modern fundamentalist, intolerant Islam, but that's just me. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:38pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
Just now eh? No pagan monuments or temples destroyed during Muhammad's time? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:39pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
So Islam should only be judged by new standards established after Muhammad died when Muslims encountered a situation where they could not get away with slaughtering pagans at will? What is the Islamic principle behind this? Pretend that Dhimmitude is against oppression when Muslims lack the military strength to oppress, then start the slaughter when you are in a position to do so?[/quote] Better provide a straight answer, G. FD didn't like your last one - or any of the multiple answers you've given on this topic over the years. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:41pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:38pm:
Do Muslims consider Buddhists pagans? That's a question. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:41pm
I don't particularly like lies about not encountering many pagans because the Christians had wiped them out.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:42pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:41pm:
Are Buddhists considered pagans? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:47pm
I'd assume so, at least for Abrahamic religions.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 1:22pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:47pm:
So why did the Muselmen accomodate them? Why were their relics preserved and maintained for centuries? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 5th, 2018 at 2:34pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 1:22pm:
The missing nose on the Great Sphinx of Giza is attributed to iconoclasm by a Sufi Muslim fanatic in the mid-1300s.[Note 2] Islamic conquests Certain conquering Muslim armies have used local temples or houses of worship as mosques. An example is Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), which was converted into a mosque in 1453. Most icons were desecrated and the rest were covered with plaster. In the 1920s, Hagia Sophia was converted to a museum, and the restoration of the mosaics was undertaken by the American Byzantine Institute beginning in 1932. More dramatic cases of iconoclasm by Muslims are found in parts of India where Hindu and Buddhist temples were razed and mosques erected in their place. Aurangzeb destroyed the famous Hindu temples at Varanasi and Mathura,[31] and even went as far as Afghanistan to attempt (unsuccessfully) to destroy the Bamyan Buddhas—a task that was later completed by the Islamist fanatic Taliban. How many new churches and synagogues have been built in Muslim-conquered countries? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:23pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
Oh look you missed it the first time. Silly you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Rights_of_non-Muslims freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
I think muslims should be judged on what they do. Radical thought I know. You actually seem to think it makes sense for muslims to be judged not on what they do, but what happened 100s of years earlier - correct? freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:30pm:
Who knows FD? Maybe they're referencing the example of Muhammad establishing the first official inter-faith community, and writing down specific laws to protect religious freedom? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:29pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
But when they are judged on what they do the come-back is always, 'But that's racist!! And islam has nuffin' to do wiv it, anyway! Just because they are Allahu Akhbaring doesn't mean they are doing it for islam'. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:33pm Frank wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 2:34pm:
Hard to say, old boy. Cute and cuddly Malaysia gets a new Shiva temple nearly every week. I concur with India, particularly in the north, but note the ancient temples still in use there. There are few Buddhist relics in India. But I'm curious. How many Catholic Churches did Cromwell leave in Mother England? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:49pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 12:41pm:
But you are happy with positively comparing Christianity against Islam - based at least in part on talking up a mythical genocide of a miniscule number of pagans by Muhammad - while ignoring the actual genocide of pagans on an industrial scale by christians? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:57pm
How many mosques were left standing in Spain? Just the ones that were transformed into cathedrals/churches I suspect:
Quote:
http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/what-mosque-white-ashing-islamic-history-in-spain/ |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:06pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:57pm:
I say, G, that's exactly what FD wants here. Start with those ones on that street in Auburn. Stopping the traffic like that - appalling. Typical. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 5th, 2018 at 7:06pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 8:35pm:
Buddhism doesn't contain the same rules about political and social organisation of a community. And even if they did, Buddha himself didn't prescribe these rules. Don't forget that the Muslim believes that Muhammad is the best example of a human being to have EVER EXISTED, which means that whatever he did is the best example for all of humanity FOR ALL OF TIME. Muhammad was ALSO a leader of a community and a military commander. Neither Jesus or Buddha were any of these things. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2018 at 7:58pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 1:22pm:
Because, in an unusual feat of awareness, those Muslims realised they could not get away with treating the Indians the way Muhammad treated the pagans of the Arabian peninsula. It's a bit like the tendency of apologists to confuse incompetence with benign intent. Quote:
Would you agree that Muhammad tossed those rights out the window when he captured Mecca? Is this not just another example of how two-faced Muhammad and his religion are, treating people decently when they have no choice, then slaughtering them when they can? Quote:
If you are going to compare apples for apples, you would compare Muhammad to Jesus. Despite coming after Jesus, Muhammad fell far short. They are pretty much opposites. If you compare the tenets of the religion, Christianity is again far superior. It gets a bit messier if you try to compare the actions of the followers, because there is a tendency then to equate the incompetence of muslims with benign intent, or drown in the quantity of information, or cherry pick.... But consider this - every example you cite against Christians is an example of Christians acting contrary to the example and words of Jesus. Every example you cite against Muslims is of Muslims following Muhammad's example and citing Muhammad's words and scripture as justification. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 8:26pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 7:58pm:
This is called goalpost shifting FD. We were talking about whether or not dhimmitude is against oppression. To answer that, we obviously need to talk about how dhimmis were treated in practice. Why would you suddenly think now that we have to compare Jesus and Muhammad as some sort of relevant exercise here? Once again you're flailing all over the place. Lets look at how much you've actually shifted the goalposts on this: 1. I make an excellent case for how dhimmis were comparitively better treated under Islam than under Christian Europe - by reference to the Christian minorities and jews under the Caliphate, compared to their treatment under the Christians. Your answer? Oh *THOSE* dhimmis don't count - lets instead talk about the pagans - ok? 2. OK, so indulge you, as I always do (my weakness) - and point out that by far the largest group of pagans under Islam - the hindus, were actually given rights as official dhimmis, and in fact mostly coexisted peacefully and prosperously under Islam. Your answer? Oh I don't mean *THOSE* pagans - we need to talk only about the pagans under Muhammad's rule - what rights did they have hmmm?? 3. I indulge you again - and point out to you twice (you always seem to need things handed to you at least twice before you notice them) the officially stated rights of pagans contained in the Constitution of Medina Your answer? Yeah but no, but anyway Muhammad trashed those rights didn't he? Do you think you could ever stick to one argument for 5 seconds? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 8:29pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 7:58pm:
One slight problem with your narrative here - Muhammad didn't slaughter the inhabitants of Mecca, you know when he could have. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 5th, 2018 at 8:31pm freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 7:58pm:
One slight problem with your narrative here - Muhammad didn't slaughter the inhabitants of Mecca, you know when he could have. I've also explained to you several times why Mecca was attacked and who committed the massacre of Muhammad's allies that broke the treaty Muhammad previously brokered. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:18pm Auggie wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 7:06pm:
The Buddha did indeed proscribe all those rules for monks and Buddhists. Almost every teaching in Buddhism comes directly from the Buddha himself. No, the Buddha was no military leader, but Buddhists have replaced the idea of God with the Buddha himself. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:22pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 8:31pm:
You did indeed. I believe you called them a treacherous "Mindless Collective". Off with their heads, no? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:36pm Quote:
Which you did by pretending Muslims did not encounter pagans until they got to India and once more found themselves unable 'in practice' to slaughter them at will. Quote:
You made the comparison between Muhammad and Christians several centuries after Jesus. I suppose you don't have to compare apples with apples if you want to be a Muslim propagandist. Quote:
By pretending they did not exist. Quote:
You still have not answered the question Gandalf. Or are you saying you want to count those rights that Muhammad gave to pagans in a position of weakness and then took away when he was in a position of strength? Is this what it really means when a Muslim talks about human rights for non-Muslims? Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Quote:
He could have died trying. He did use Mecca as a base from which to slaughter other pagans and destroy pagan temples and monuments. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:06pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:22pm:
Karnal, why don't you just f vck orf for a few weeks? You pervert every single thread where some sort of dialogue or conversation might, just might be in the offing. Why don't you go off to some distant Indian place and have your fill of shite for a few weeks and just forget ozpolitic. Lots of rent boys for 10 rupees, you'd be in heaven. Off you f vck, there' a good Paki. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:09pm Frank wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:06pm:
Have you thought of complaining to the moderator? No one has the right to not be offended, dear boy - except your good self, isn't it. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:30pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:09pm:
Complain?? I am giving you free advice. Normally this would cost you about $200 an hour. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:51pm Frank wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 11:30pm:
Feel free to write to FD, dear. I hear he's always quick with a reply. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:07am freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:36pm:
Except, you know, for the whole showing you twice the Constitution of Medina thing that codified worshipping rights for pagans. freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:36pm:
Just think this through for a moment FD. You started the conversation about dhimmis - its right there in the thread title. Dhimmis didn't even exist during Muhammad's time. Instead muslims and non-muslims were treated as equals and coexisted as exemplified by the Constitution of Medina. At no stage did Muhammad bestow 'dhimmi' status on his non-muslim subjects. It came into being only during the Caliphate, when the scale of the state obviously made administration more complicated. So thats what I'm talking about - as you yourself requested in the thread title question. So again, how is comparing Jesus and Muhammad relevant to this topic? freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:36pm:
FD I literally just explained to you how false this narrative is. Why must you continually make me repeat myself? Muhammad forged the treaty of Hudabiyya with the pagans - when he was in a position of strength. Look it up - Muhammad and his allies far outnumbered the Quraysh at that time, he could have marched on Mecca at any time. Instead he chose a peace treaty - with extremely favourable terms to the pagans - so favourable in fact that it almost caused a revolt against Muhammad. Secondly, when the Quraysh violated that treaty by massacring a tribe allied to Muhammad, he again showed restraint - conquering Mecca with almost no bloodshed. No vengeful recriminations followed. Again, in an overwehlming position of strength. Understand a bit of history for once - for God's sake! freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:36pm:
Is this the part where I post you those specific rights - for a third time? Or will this be another segue into another goal-shifting exercise? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2018 at 12:27pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:07am:
You have not posted any. That would make it too easy to expose your hypocrisy. Let's try again for a straight answer. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their shoulders? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 6th, 2018 at 12:54pm freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 12:27pm:
I verily did, and whats more you even acknowledged my posting them - by rhetorically asking me if he violated those very rights that I posted: Quote:
If he 'tossed those rights out the window when he captured Mecca' - is that not acknowledging that the rights were given before Mecca was captured? You need to work out what your debating points actually are FD, rather than knee-jerkingly just repeating questions while having no comprehension of what an answer to those questions actually entails. You are clearly confused. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 6th, 2018 at 4:38pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 12:54pm:
Let's try again for a straight answer. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Can you tell us again, G? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2018 at 6:44pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 12:54pm:
How exactly is this you telling me (repeatedly, apparently) what the specific rights are? I don't see a single one there. Let's try again for a straight answer. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their shoulders? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:09pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:07am:
Would you like to live in Australia like a dhimmi lived under Muslim rule?? If it was really as wonderful as you preach, you should be saying yes. But you will say no, of course. Very well, let's try the current situation. Would you like to live in Australia like a dhimmi lives in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, Aceh today? No. Islam then, Islam now. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:11pm
Let's have two lots of tax codes: one for Christians and the other for Muslims. Both tax codes charge the same rate of tax, but they just have two different names.
This 'separate but equal' doctrine is what Gandalf supports. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:11pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 12:54pm:
He was not in a position to actually give rights before he was victorious. He was made to flee - not someone who can grant rights. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:13pm Auggie wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:11pm:
WOW!! Have you ever thought of becoming the President of the Australian Imams' Council? There may be a vacancy and you are as smart as any of the candidates. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:18pm Frank wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:11pm:
When he first arrived in Medina he talked his way into a position of authority, but was not in a position to abuse that authority. So he negotiated some kind of agreement. Shortly after his first significant military victory, he publicly told the Jews to convert or die. No need with the pagans, as they seemed happy to join in the rape and pillage. But it was not long till the pagans were not converting fast enough either, so they also fell victim to Muhammad's genocidal mania. Somehow this counts as granting them rights. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:50pm freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 6:44pm:
FD what "rights" did you have in mind when you asked me if I agreed that he tossed those rights out the window when he captured Mecca? Do you often construct debating points using information you later deny was ever brought up? Or is it just when you're running with the 'evasive muslim' angle? Did you bother reading the link? For example the bit where it specifically referred to pagan rights to worship? Its even in dot points, you know the sort of format you might expect in a listing of rights. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:55pm Frank wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:13pm:
Hello? What's this all about? I'm on your side here, Frank. At least for today. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:57pm Auggie wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:11pm:
He has to, Auggie, he's a Moslem. He also has to support executing gays who do it Mardi Gras-style, funding terrorism, and spreading Muslim diseases (Islam is not a race). The old boy supports the Lutheran tax codes, but that's just he. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:59pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:57pm:
Well, executing gays is still quite common in Muslim-majority countries, isn't it? They like throwing gays off rooftops there. Do you think that's because Mo' would've approved of such behaviour? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:00pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:50pm:
Did Christians and Jews have the right to build churches, synagogues and to openly practice their faith? Did they also have the right to preach their faith? Did they have equal opportunity in bureaucratic positions without having to convert?? All of these things. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:10pm Auggie wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:59pm:
But of course. Whatever ISIS do is exactly what Moh would have done. These people are Moslems. Always absolutely never ever. Eternal. On stilts. These people have to obey their sinister prophet, and their prophet has to forgive them. Muslim victim mentality, innit. Apparently Moh had a big nose so it's wacist. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:26pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:10pm:
Let me guess, ISIS got nuffin to do wiv Islam. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:32pm Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:26pm:
You? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:33pm Quote:
You? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:50pm Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:33pm:
I asked you first, Secret. Do you think ISIS follow the religion of Islam? Why or why not? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:54pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:50pm:
Lutherans I think. With stilts. Tinted ain't they? :) |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:58pm Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:54pm:
Not at all. Martin Luther was around in the 16th century. The old boy supports the tax code, but I think you'll find Luther had more of a tan. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:12pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:50pm:
No Gandalf. I did not bother reading it. You will have to do your own lying. Let's try again for a straight answer. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their shoulders? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:13am freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:12pm:
Oh look, you missed it again - for a second time. Silly you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Rights_of_non-Muslims In case you're wondering, these are the rights you acknowledged when you asked if they were thrown out the window when Mecca was captured. freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:12pm:
Fair enough. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:31am polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:13am:
FD told you to do your own lying, G. It's the closest he's come to yet to admitting his campaign is all about competing lies. The Muselman (taqiyya); FD (the use of porkies in his campaign against the Muselman). Of course FD won't read your responses. He just wants to ask questions about what Muslims themselves believe. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2018 at 12:00pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:31am:
And he doesn't even care that they have been answered. As he just said "I did not bother reading it". So what does he do? Pretend it somehow hasn't been answered - even though he directly referenced that answer - and continues on with his broken record routine. Very annoying. Its not the logical fallacies, or the goalshifting, or even the outright porkies that gets me. Its this unbelievably inane and infantile game of pretending its *ME* who's being evasive and dishonest. The hide! go figure [smiley=angry.gif] |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 7th, 2018 at 12:40pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:13am:
Did Muhammad reneg on any of those rights when he threatened the Medina Jews with slaughter if they did not convert to Islam? Or when he followed through and slaughtered them? Or when he banned Pagans from their own shrine in Mecca, and then the entire city? Or when he used Mecca as a base from which to slaughter Pagans and destroy their shrines and monuments? In case you have not figured it out yet, I am not asking you which rights he temporarily granted to specific groups of people when he was in a position of weakness and negotiating with them directly. I am asking you to actually think for yourself. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2018 at 7:40pm freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 12:40pm:
Thats exactly what you asked FD. You just want to shift the goalposts now. In case you are confused, these are your exact words: Quote:
You don't specify that it can't be 'temporary' or done only in a position of weakness. And no, there is no evidence that pagans lost any of the rights Muhammad granted them. Apart from the ones that violated the treaty they had with him of course. freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 12:40pm:
My understanding is that Muhammad didn't slaughter any jews - save for perhaps maybe a dozen or so ringleaders who conspired to materially support the army that was laying siege to their city, in direct violation of the treaty they had with Muhammad. There is also no evidence he committed the genocide against pagans you constantly allude to. Certainly he did not conduct any vengeful recriminations against the Quraysh when he captured Mecca with virtually no blood spilled. You'd have a hard time arguing he wasn't in a "position of strength" then. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 7th, 2018 at 8:29pm Auggie wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 7:55pm:
Please don't be on my side. You do not understand what the sides are. you do not understand your own side. I don't think you understand anything. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm Quote:
Did the constitution of Medina apply to all pagans? Or are you doing the slippery Muslim trick and pretending I was asking what rights he granted to a specific group of pagans? Quote:
Is this what Muslims mean when they say they support human rights? Is this what they mean when they say Dhimmitude is against oppression - unless they specify always and for all people, they merely mean as and when it suits the Islamist agenda? Quote:
What about the ones that want to visit their pagan shrine in Mecca? Quote:
Down from a few hundred eh? Why the need for your embarrassing mindless collective of treacherous Jews meme? Quote:
Can we start with what I actually said? Let's try again for a straight answer eh? Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:22pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 12:00pm:
Well, G, you do respond. He doesn't say boo to silly old Karnal. I'm the Islamic blowfly, you see. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:31pm Frank wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 8:29pm:
The old boy's always offended, Auggie, don't you worry. He does have that right, no? They're tinted. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 8th, 2018 at 9:12pm freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
No because funnily enough Muhammad didn't have control over all pagans at the time. I thought it would go without saying that his laws regarding pagans only apply to pagans under his control. freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
And there goes FD on 'meme generator' mode again. freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
You have made reference to Muhammad's "genocide" against the pagans several times. On at least one occassion you conceded you meant jews not pagans, but that hasn't stopped you from repeating the reference. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 8th, 2018 at 10:06pm
Muhammad slaughtered pagans as well as Jews Gandalf.
Let's try again for a straight answer eh? Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 9th, 2018 at 11:19am Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:10pm:
Well, Mohammad did say in Surah 5, which is the last Surah chronologically that 'I have perfected your religion for you." Anything which happened during Mohammad's ministry could be considered progressive; but that progression ceased when he died. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 9th, 2018 at 5:38pm
Dhimmitude by its' very definition is absolute discrimination.
A dhimmi is a second class citizen, tolerated on the whim of which ever muslim is overseeing him. They are subjected to taxation, building codes, dress, transport etc regulations / rules which the ruling muslim class are not. Of course it is discriminatory. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2018 at 6:45pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 9:12pm:
Would you like to be a dhimmi? Your daughters and wives to be dhimmis? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 9th, 2018 at 11:15pm Frank wrote on Sep 9th, 2018 at 6:45pm:
You're a Dhimmi. Lose your imported, sht-eating superiority, and we'll see. Maybe. Until then, old boy, you'll always be a Dhimmi. Always, absolutely, never ever. You're a third-class citizen because you choose to be. Superior culture, innit. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 10th, 2018 at 6:53pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 9th, 2018 at 11:15pm:
I have to say: you know how to hit back hard, K. Well done. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 10th, 2018 at 8:27pm Auggie wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 6:53pm:
Here we go, yokels in a circle wank asserting their values. A Paki and a frikken Roman emperor wannabe. The rabid and the delusional. Australia, your are standing in it. Up to your chins. With shiteheads like these speaking for you, you are about to go Western Europe's way into Submission and complete self-abnegation. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 10th, 2018 at 9:12pm Frank wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 8:27pm:
You know, no one has the right to be offended, you know? You guys just expect to be able to dish out insults without being called out. Not gonna happen buddy. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 10th, 2018 at 9:48pm
Pretending home-grown Aussies are Pakis is a tried and tested old boy staple. He believes this covers his status as a dirty old sheisen-eater.
The old boy doesn't even get a vote. He flew here. He can piss off to Pakistan anytime he wants. WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 11th, 2018 at 6:27pm Auggie wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 9:12pm:
But... but... I know, I know. :D |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 12th, 2018 at 1:44pm freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 10:06pm:
Oooh can I play this game of endless copies and pasties the same inane posts too? Oh look, you missed it again - for a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Rights_of_non-Muslims "legal rights" you requested - you know, the ones you don't bother to read, and then ask me for them again over and over. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:21pm
Perhaps asking Gandalf to list all of them is too much of a burden. Can you give us one example Gandalf? Other than converting or dying, what is one legal right that Muhammad extended to Pagans? As you seem to have forgotten, I am not talking about rights he temporarily negotiated with a small group of pagans before doing one of his backflips and taking them away.
Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:41pm freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:21pm:
Can you explain when the 'blackflip' was? There's no indication that the Constitution expired. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:45pm
All non-Muslims were banned from the area. Gandalf has also tried to argue it applied to the Medina Jews, despite Muhammad committing genocide against them, and despite him publicly threatening to slaughter them if they did not convert to Islam.
A lot of historians don't even consider it a constitution in the conventional sense. Rather it was a unilateral set of laws that Muhammad changed (again, unilaterally) over time, as well as ignoring them when he wanted to commit genocide. This is why Gandalf is afraid to list any specific rights. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:49pm freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:45pm:
Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad.[17] One of the constitution's more interesting aspects was the inclusion of the Jewish tribes in the ummah because although the Jewish tribes were "one community with the believers", they also "have their religion and the Muslims have theirs".[18] |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 12th, 2018 at 9:16pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 9:12pm:
Would you like to be a dhimmi? Your daughters and wives to be dhimmis? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 13th, 2018 at 10:01am freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:21pm:
And as you seem to have forgotton - why not? An example of extending rights is an example of extending rights, regardless of what may or may not have happened subsequent to that extension. The constitution of medina is a clear example of Muhammad "extending" legal rights to pagans - ie giving them options other than converting or dying. The list is even in dot point for you. Thats what you asked for FD, plain and simple. You didn't ask "well apart from that clear example where Muhammad signed a treaty with the pagans under his rule and gave them specific worshipping rights.....give us just one example..." Shifting the goalposts isn't going to work here. You are worse than monty python. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:35am Frank wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Bloody oath, son. Quote:
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:38am
Yes, G, but you forgot to answer this.
freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:21pm:
FD says you're too scared to say. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm Quote:
Because it is misleading, though not unexpected from a Muslim, to try to pass of the constitution of Medina as Muhammad "extending rights to pagans". They are not actually rights if you give them and take them away on a whim Gandalf. Which is of course, why you are afraid to give a straight answer. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:13pm freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
An example of extending rights is an example of extending rights. Your "oh but apart from..." monty python routine is just blatant goal post shifting. You've never actually disputed the fact that they were actual rights and they were actually extended to the pagans - merely that they were taken away sometime after the fact, and that this somehow constitutes never extending any rights in the first place (flawed logic). And besides there is no evidence those rights were taken away "on a whim" - unless you call literally conspiring with the enemy to bring your state down a "whim". freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
The straightest possible answer, 3 times now. The truth is, and you should be honest and admit this, there is literally nothing I could say about Muhammad that you wouldn't use as evidence to demonstrate the evil caricature you are so determined to construct of him. Nothing at all. So of course we get this glib "you can't give a straight answer" - even though I produce exactly what you asked for. Exactly. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:12pm freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
FD, the burden of proof is on you to prove that these rights were 'taken away'. There's no indication (unless you can provide it) that the Constitution was abrogated or repealed. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 13th, 2018 at 7:01pm Quote:
So every day you are not killed is a day you have the right to life, up until the day they actually kill you? Is this really what Muslims think rights are? If so, why are you afraid to list any? Quote:
It was genocide Gandalf. First the Jews, then later all non-Muslims were expelled from the area. Non-Muslims are still banned from Mecca, which was a major centre for pagan worship until Muhammad came along. How you manage to equate that with non-Muslims having rights just demonstrates how little regard Muslims have for human rights. Let's try again for a straight answer eh? Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:34am Quote:
You're not refuting anything I actually pointed out, nor making much sense at all. Extended rights are extended rights - regardless of what happens subsequently. Thats all there is to it. I don't even know what your point is - again, you are not refuting the fact that rights were extended, only that they were taken away after the fact. In which case the only possible argument could be that yes they were granted, but they were cynically granted - and by that logic they are not really granted in the first place? In which case you are just shifting the goal posts. freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 7:01pm:
1. Jews are not pagans, lets stick to the topic please. and 2. Muhammad expelled no pagans. I think you really should concentrate more on making a coherent point, and reading what I actually write might be useful too. This might be a bit more productive than getting your kicks from copy-paste the same question over and over - when its been answered over and over. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:37am Auggie wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:12pm:
FD has proven time and time again he has little comprehension of what burden of proof actually entails. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:19pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:34am:
Do you consider it misleading for Muslims to claim Muhammad "extended rights to pagans" when he only negotiated with a particular group of pagans? Do you think it is misleading for Muslims to argue that Dhimmitude is against oppression, when supporting this argument requires you to ignore all the times Muhammad and his successors oppressed nonMuslims? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 14th, 2018 at 1:12pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:34am:
FD's not making a point though, G, he just wants to know what Muslims themselves believe. He does this through the use of questions - here, he's asking you for a list of Dhimmi rights. FD, you see, is curious. He just doesn't want to click on your Wikipedia article, okay? FD's so curious he wants you to answer the question again. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 14th, 2018 at 3:15pm freediver wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:19pm:
Firstly, thank you for not inanely repeating that dumb question again like a broken record. a particular group of pagans? I think you are confused. All groups under Muhammad's rule - pagans, jews, muslims, christians if there were any - were included in the Constitution of Medina. None were excluded: Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Constitution_of_Medina Quote:
Do you think it is misleading to argue that dhimmitude is inherently oppressive, when supporting this argument requires you to ignore the fact that under the system, freedom of religion and protection of religious minorities was specifically written into law - and that for most of Islam's history, these laws were abided by? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 14th, 2018 at 7:02pm
FD's on the back foot here.
He needs to provide evidence of the following: That the Constitution of Medina was repealed at a specific time (which time) and what was it replaced by? We can expect him to go a-searching for the answer but I doubt he'll find it. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 14th, 2018 at 8:46pm Frank wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Gandalf, you are avoiding the point - would you be happy for your daughters and wives to be dhimmis? (paki the Vietnam war veteran ( :D) indicated that he would submit to anything as long as he didn't have defend his 'cuntry', a place he abhors). |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:03pm Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 8:46pm:
Damn right. The cheese-sniffer expects us to fight for the Kingdom of Denmark. Been there, done that. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:38pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:03pm:
And then you switched to arse'oles. Cheese too 'white' for ya, paki? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:45pm Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:38pm:
Fck off, we're full. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 16th, 2018 at 1:11pm Quote:
Gandalf, can you explain how this is consistent with Muhammad threatening to slaughter Jews if they did not convert to Islam? He did this as soon as he was in a position to threaten people. And then followed this up by slaughtering some and expelling the others. Quote:
No. It is inherently oppressive. It is religious apartheid. One set of rules for Muslims, one set for Jews and Christians. One set for pagans. You would not tolerate the reverse situation, yet somehow you expect non-Muslims to be naive enough to see Muslims as some kind of benign overlord. You are polishing a turd Gandalf. Quote:
Gandalf, when I asked you what rights Muhamamd extended to pagans, I was not asking you what rights Muslims lie about, or what rights were written down by Muhammad but ignored in practice. I was asking you what rights he actually extended. In reality. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 17th, 2018 at 1:47pm freediver wrote on Sep 16th, 2018 at 1:11pm:
Do you know what I'm hearing FD? I'm hearing "Gandalf why can't you answer my question by premising it on my skewed 'wikipedia-cherry picked' mickey mouse understanding of the life of Muhammad?" Can you cite any actual instances - even fairy tale "FD-history" ones - where Muhammad went back on his word regarding the rights of the pagans under his rule that were "written down" in the constitution of Medina? Did you notice that whenever you try and make a point about pagan rights being violated, you only cite examples about jews? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 17th, 2018 at 8:39pm
When Muslims say that Dhimmitude is against oppression, do they really mean only for those non-Muslims in a position to negotiate some rights for themselves, and only for so long as Muslims choose to honour their agreement? Should we take this behaviour as indicative of the broader approach that Muslims have to respecting human rights?
Do you think I am being unfair by cherry picking Muhammad's campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing rather than focus on all the nice things he did? Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? How does the banning of pagans (and all non-Muslims) from their own Mecca for pagan ritual, and then the broader hejaz region, including Medina where they were supposedly protected by that constitution, fit in with your BS about pagans having rights? How do Muhammad's campaigns to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan monuments and shrines fit in with your lies about pagans having rights? And what about "tough titties, off with their heads"? Would you trust someone who said this about people they later insisted had rights? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by .JaSin. on Sep 17th, 2018 at 8:51pm
All 'Prophets' are Rednecks. Mohommed was a Redneck (kill the people!) and Hitler was a Redneck (kill the people)...
...while all Messiahs a Poofs. Jesus was a Poof (people kill Messiah) and soon the French will provide a Messiah for the Moslems to be appeased ...hence the growth in 'Pro-Gay' agenda. Only have to look in Melbourne and you'll see all the Redneck 'Prophet' potential Jews rooting around. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 17th, 2018 at 8:54pm freediver wrote on Sep 17th, 2018 at 8:39pm:
Good questions, FD. Do you mind if I ask you one? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 19th, 2018 at 9:03am freediver wrote on Sep 17th, 2018 at 8:39pm:
Do yourself a favour FD, why not just write a script that copies and pastes the same inane post automatically for you, rather than going to the bother of copy-paste it manually? ... or maybe you already did |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 19th, 2018 at 12:09pm
Perhaps we should establish a timeline of Muhammad's sinister backflips and the use of Dhimmitude as a tool of grinding oppression.
After Muhammad concocted this constitution that supposedly granted the citizens of Medina freedom of religion, how long was it until he threatened the Jews of Medina with slaughter if they did not convert to Islam? How long was it until he followed through with his threats and committed genocide? How long was it until Muslims started blaming the Jews for their own demise with mindless collectives of treacherous Jews memes? How long was it until pagans were banned from their own shrine in Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the city of Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the region of Hejaz, including Medina? How long was it until Muhammad was launching raids to slaughter pagans and destroy competing pagan monuments and shrines? How do you expect people to take you seriously when you claim Muhammad granted non-Muslims basic human rights such as freedom of religion? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 19th, 2018 at 1:14pm
ah we're back to "please base your answer on my cherry-picked wikipedia mickey mouse version of history".
As you were. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 19th, 2018 at 4:44pm freediver wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 12:09pm:
Good questions, FD. Do you mind if I ask you one? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 11:19am
Gandalf, can you explain in your own words what rights you think Muhammad gave pagans and how he used the institution of Dhimmitude to protect them?
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 11:32am freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 11:19am:
Yes, G, no sources this time, please. And try to use different words to the last time you explained it, okay? Also, if you could make something up for FD, it would be much appreciated. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:42pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 11:19am:
The Constitution of Medina protected those rights. I don't know why you're finding this difficult to believe. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:50pm Auggie wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:42pm:
Non-Muslims were banned from the area. Muhammad himself committed genocide against the Jews of Medina. That's why it's hard to believe the constitution protected their rights. Are you disagreeing with me, or do you just not understand what I am saying? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:52pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:50pm:
The burden is on you to prove that these acts of genocide were committed AFTER the promulgation of the Constitution, which you seem to be saying. Unless you can prove this, then your argument is moot. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:56pm Auggie wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:52pm:
Gandalf claimed the Jews were protected by the constitution. Depending on which particular backflip he is doing, he sometimes uses their alleged violation of the constitution to justify Muhammad's genocide. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:58pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:56pm:
That may be the case. Again, you need to show me that these acts were committed AFTER the promulgation of the Constitution. The slaughter of the so-called 'mindless collective' of Jews - did this take place after the Constitution or before? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:02pm
Moving the goal posts, here is a statement from Wikipedia (sourced) about the Battle of Banu Qurayza:
In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza initially tried to remain neutral but eventually entered into negotiations with the besieging army, violating the pact they had agreed to years earlier.[8] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[9][10] The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and their men were beheaded.[9][10][11][12][13] |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:04pm Auggie wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:58pm:
No I don't. I don't even think it was a constitution. I think it was a unilateral declaration by Muhammad that changed over time according to his whim. You and Gandalf claimed the constitution protected their rights, not me. The onus is on you. Quote:
What was this "pact," and do you think it was still binding after Muhammad started publicly threatening to slaughter the Jews if they did not convert to Islam? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:08pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:04pm:
As you can see from the above post, the Jews violated the pact, which led to Muhammad to pursue his military campaign. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:09pm
What was this "pact," and do you think it was still binding after Muhammad started publicly threatening to slaughter the Jews if they did not convert to Islam?
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:12pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:09pm:
How do you know that he massacred them BECAUSE they would not convert? Can you cite evidence that this happened or quotations from the Quran? The above statement says that the 'pact' was the Constitution of Medina. The Jewish and other tribes violated that pact according to this article. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:30pm Quote:
I can cite him threatening to slaughter them if they do not convert to Islam, and I can cite historical accounts of him following this up by slaughtering them. As historical evidence goes, it rarely gets any better than that. Quote:
Is this the same constitution you implied did not protect them because Muhammad concocted it after his genocide of the Jews? Quote:
I expect they did. Though Muslim sources cite some of his victims as coming to Muhammad's aide, despite the threats, and despite his actions already taken against another Jewish tribe. Would you plot against a ruler who publicly threatened to kill you if you did not convert to his religion that placed him as the arbiter of God's will and you as a second class citizen? Or would you spinelessly apologise for such a ruler? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 5:49pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 11:19am:
The "institution of Dhimmitude" didn't exist until after Muhammad's death FD. Which is why you once again twisting this into yet another 'yeah but Muhammad beheaded the jews' rant is so dumb. Muhammad was more a 'equality for everyone' kind of guy. Hence the constitution of Medina you keep ignoring. Dhimmitude was a system that was developed by the Caliphs as a practical measure to administer a massive geographical empire that had vast non-muslim subjects. A problem that Muhammad never faced. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 5:56pm Quote:
Was Muhammad in violation of this constitution when he threatened to slaughter the Jews of Medina if they did not convert to Islam? Quote:
Because he killed them? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 6:00pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 3:50pm:
Rubbish. You are clearly confused. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 6:15pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 6:00pm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia Non-Muslims are also strictly banned from the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. https://islamqa.info/en/47736 It is not permissible allow the kuffaar to take up residence in the Arabian Peninsula. The scholars differed at to the definition of the boundaries of the Arabian Peninsula, but they did not differ as to the fact that Madeenah is part of it. Ibn Qudaamah said: It is not permissible for any of them (the kuffaar) to live in the Hijaaz. This is the view of Maalik and al-Shaafa’i, but Maalik said: I think that they should be expelled from all the Arab lands, because the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.” Abu Dawood narrated with his isnaad from ‘Umar that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “I will certainly expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula,, and I will not leave anyone there but Muslims.” Al-Tirmidhi said: this is a saheeh hasan hadeeth. And it was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) left behind three instructions. He said: Expel the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula, honour the delegations the way that I do, and he kept quiet about the third. Narrated by Abu Dawood. Gandalf, is this what passes for freedom of religion under Islam? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 11:02pm
And here I was thinking we were discussing the right of Jews to keep their heads attached to their bodies.
I guess we've moved on from that one. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 3:28pm
gandalf wrote Reply #205 - Yesterday at 5:49pm:
Quote:
The jizyah is described in the Qurʾān as a tax that is imposed on a certain erring faction from among the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb; non-Muslim groups such as Christians and Jews recognized in the Qurʾān as possessing a divine scripture) who violate their own religious and ethical principles (9:29). In return for payment of the jizyah, non-Muslim populations—specifically Jews and Christians—were granted protection of life and property and the right to practice their religion. Under this policy they were called dhimmīs (protected people). qur'an 9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. Jizyah a special tax on non muslims who were called dhimmis. Preached by muhammad in the qur'an. Yet it didn't exist till after his death? Are you saying he preached it but didn't practice it gandi? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 6:24pm freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:30pm:
Please do. freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 4:30pm:
Please provide evidence of this fact. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Auggie on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 6:26pm moses wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 3:28pm:
The Jizya was imposed by Muhammad as war reparations after a battle. The verse which reveals the Jizya is in this context. Think about it. If you go to war and defeat your enemy, wouldn't you ask for war reparations? God knows the Allies did this in both WW1 and WW2. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 7:49pm Auggie wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 6:26pm:
Islam is in perpetual war with non-Muslims. House of Islam (submissives) and House of War (the free) is their formulation. When Islam conquers and subjugates all then there will be only thee House of Islam. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:27pm
The old boy is the perpetual Jizzya. He flew here, refuses to assimilate.
Lucky we're a multicultural bunch, no? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:31pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:27pm:
You paki arsebandits are. Don't pretend to speak for the sane and honourable and decent people. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:38pm Frank wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:
Sorry, old boy, I'm British. Your Paki game is a cunning ruse to have us banned. So I'm curious. Rather than a second class of Jizzya taxpaying citizens, what's your solution for those who flew here? Ban them. Kill them. Cesterete them? And if they grew here: Paki them. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 24th, 2018 at 10:56am freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Non-muslims were not banned by Muhammad from Medina. That was your claim. As far as I know pagans and jews were free to live and worship in Medina under the COM - provided they didn't conspire to overthrow Muhammad of course. Then its tough titties off with your head. But I'm curious FD, you have dabbled with two conflicting arguments over the years: first you said 'the jews did no wrong' - in terms of violating any treaty, and it was purely a case of Muhammad going back on his word, *HE* violated the treaty, and executed the Qurayza for no justifiable reason. But then not long ago you abandoned that and said that actually the Qurayza *DID* violate their agreement with Muhammad, but it was right and proper to do so, given that Muhammad was Hitler on steroids, evil incarnate etc etc. A sort of 'Warsaw Ghetto uprising' of the 7th century. So the question is, for the purposes of this discussion, which way are you flip flopping today FD? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 24th, 2018 at 1:14pm Quote:
Here you go Gandalf: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 6:00pm:
You have also been claiming that Muhammad cannot be used as an example of Dhimmitude. Quote:
Did Muhammad violate this constitution when he publicly threatened to slaughter the Jews if they did not convert to Islam? How long did it take after this constition until the area was ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims? Quote:
Do you think he did? Quote:
I have been making arguments similar to what you describe for years Gandalf. Quote:
The arguments I actually made are not mutually exclusive. Only your misrepresentations of them. You are the only one here promoting collective punishment of mindless collectives of treacherous Jews. Once you let go of your racist mindless collective stereotype, both arguments make sense. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? When Muslims say that Dhimmitude is against oppression, do they really mean only for those non-Muslims in a position to negotiate some rights for themselves, and only for so long as Muslims choose to honour their agreement? Should we take this behaviour as indicative of the broader approach that Muslims have to respecting human rights? Do you think I am being unfair by cherry picking Muhammad's campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing rather than focus on all the nice things he did? How does the banning of pagans (and all non-Muslims) from their own Mecca for pagan ritual, and then the broader hejaz region, including Medina where they were supposedly protected by that constitution, fit in with your BS about pagans having rights? How do Muhammad's campaigns to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan monuments and shrines fit in with your lies about pagans having rights? And what about "tough titties, off with their heads"? Would you trust someone who said this about people they later insisted had rights? After Muhammad concocted this constitution that supposedly granted the citizens of Medina freedom of religion, how long was it until he threatened the Jews of Medina with slaughter if they did not convert to Islam? How long was it until he followed through with his threats and committed genocide? How long was it until Muslims started blaming the Jews for their own demise with mindless collectives of treacherous Jews memes? How long was it until pagans were banned from their own shrine in Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the city of Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the region of Hejaz, including Medina? How long was it until Muhammad was launching raids to slaughter pagans and destroy competing pagan monuments and shrines? How do you expect people to take you seriously when you claim Muhammad granted non-Muslims basic human rights such as freedom of religion? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by moses on Sep 24th, 2018 at 2:01pm
Auggie wrote Reply #212 - Yesterday at 6:26pm
Quote:
Come on Auggie stop the excuses. The issue is gandi told us: Quote:
Which the site clearly disputes, muhammad called for Jizya, the people paying jizya were called dhimmis. The site also makes reference to the inconsistency of how muhammad imposed his Jizya on the Non-muslims. So clearly dhimmitude was practiced in muhammads time. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 24th, 2018 at 2:24pm freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 1:14pm:
Thats debatable. On the one hand you said this: freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2016 at 7:17pm:
- before, and therefore irrespective of anything that happened vis the Banu Qurayza actions during the battle of the trench. And yet, the rest of the time you've been churning out pages and pages defending the loyal conduct of the Qurayza, insisting no treaty had been broken, claiming that there wasn't even any treaty with the Qurayza to break, that the Qurayza actually helped Muhammad during the siege, thus refuting the idea that they betrayed him. So basically you argue 1. foul play! the Banu Qurayza did nothing disloyal to Muhammad, and therefore so unfair they got executed for treason, while at the same time 2. Such heroes that they turned against Hitler on steroids - and so "unfortunate they failed". Clearly two conflicting arguments. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:10pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:38pm:
Yeah, sure you are. Not Australian then. Yet you squeal as if the Village People were up you, Paki. Taqiyya. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:23pm Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:10pm:
Shure I am. You? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:39pm Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:23pm:
Not Australian, then. Yet squealing like one. And like a Paki. And like a Muslim spokesthingy. It is a constant and unpredictable game of 'who the f××× are you' with karnal the shifty bugger. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Yadda on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:49pm Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:39pm:
Frank, On K. I always think of K, as trying to impersonate a believer. e.g. Here on OzPol, he is always sidestepping a direct question, if the answer to that direct question could be 'too revealing' of his true character and true motives. [sorta like Auggie too, only 10 x more devious than Auggie.] And K is succeeding in his impersonation, in my eyes. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 25th, 2018 at 12:08am Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:39pm:
Not at all, old boy. Karnal's the Australian. You flew here, remember? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 25th, 2018 at 12:10am Yadda wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:49pm:
You flew here too, Y, remember? You came here on a broom. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 25th, 2018 at 8:29am Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 12:08am:
I have assimilated. You are still 'British' and praise allah, shifty Paki bugger. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 25th, 2018 at 8:41am Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 10:38pm:
Assimilate. The obvious and only feasible answer is the one that never occurs to your type. You spend your lives searching for and spruiking bs answers. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 25th, 2018 at 10:16am Frank wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 8:29am:
You're a Nazi. FD wants to ask your type questions at the airport. Are you, or have you ever been tinted? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Yadda on Sep 25th, 2018 at 11:30am Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 9:39pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 12:10am:
LOL That is not something i am able to confirm for you K. Because you are 100% wrong. K, Q. Do your sons attend your local mosque too ? Are you too ashamed [of your fully devious interactions here] to fess up ? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 25th, 2018 at 1:06pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 2:24pm:
Can you quote me actually making those arguments Gandalf? Remember you are the only one here promoting collective punishment of mindless collectives of treacherous Jews. Once you let go of your racist mindless collective stereotype, the arguments I actually made make sense. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? When Muslims say that Dhimmitude is against oppression, do they really mean only for those non-Muslims in a position to negotiate some rights for themselves, and only for so long as Muslims choose to honour their agreement? Should we take this behaviour as indicative of the broader approach that Muslims have to respecting human rights? Do you think I am being unfair by cherry picking Muhammad's campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing rather than focus on all the nice things he did? How does the banning of pagans (and all non-Muslims) from their own Mecca for pagan ritual, and then the broader hejaz region, including Medina where they were supposedly protected by that constitution, fit in with your BS about pagans having rights? How do Muhammad's campaigns to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan monuments and shrines fit in with your lies about pagans having rights? And what about "tough titties, off with their heads"? Would you trust someone who said this about people they later insisted had rights? After Muhammad concocted this constitution that supposedly granted the citizens of Medina freedom of religion, how long was it until he threatened the Jews of Medina with slaughter if they did not convert to Islam? How long was it until he followed through with his threats and committed genocide? How long was it until Muslims started blaming the Jews for their own demise with mindless collectives of treacherous Jews memes? How long was it until pagans were banned from their own shrine in Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the city of Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the region of Hejaz, including Medina? How long was it until Muhammad was launching raids to slaughter pagans and destroy competing pagan monuments and shrines? How do you expect people to take you seriously when you claim Muhammad granted non-Muslims basic human rights such as freedom of religion? Back to top |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Sep 25th, 2018 at 1:29pm freediver wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 1:06pm:
I can certainly quote you arguing that there was no evidence there was any treaty between Muhammad and the jews, and therefore they can't be accused of breaking it - as if that was somehow a significant point in your defense of the Qurayza. I refer you then to the 'duty of care to humanity' quote above. This suggests it wouldn't have mattered a) whether or not there was a treaty and b) whether or not it was broken, and indeed the wording of the quote insinuates very strongly that the jews did go back on their word (justified of course by claiming Muhammad had already de-facto declared war on them). Basically, if the jews had a 'duty of care' to stop evil incarnate, aka Muhammad, why spend so long arguing the toss about whether or not the jews actually violated their treaty? Clearly they had a "duty of care" *TO* violate it if it did exist - right? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Sep 25th, 2018 at 6:49pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 1:29pm:
Is this some of the reason why the Muslim would rather have their fellow Muslim Palestinians as refugees for over seven decades rather than recognise the obvious facts of Israel and come to terms with it? In addition, the doctrine of 'once Muslim always Muslim' is strong within you lot, you apply it all over the world, including here. The Jihad goes on. Democratic, humane, open societies are not in the creed so tellembuggerem. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Sep 28th, 2018 at 7:25pm Quote:
You used the violation of the treaty as an excuse for Muhammad's genocide of the Jews. Obviously that makes the fact that they are not listed among the parties to the treaty relevant. You were wrong on several different levels Gandalf. That you were wrong for so many other reasons does not mean I should ignore this particular reason. Quote:
In that case I refer you to what the quote actually says. Quote:
You lied about the treaty. You brought it up. You offered several different versions of why Muhammad's genocide of the Jews was the right thing to do. I discredited each one. I did this because you offered it as an excuse for genocide, not because I saw any particular merit in your argument. Other than converting or dying, what legal rights did Muhammad extend to Pagans? Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body? When Muhammad first came into a position where he could get away with slaughtering people, and he celebrated by publicly threatening to slaughter the Medina Jews if they did not convert to Islam, was he defending their right to convert to Islam, or their right to die? When Muslims say that Dhimmitude is against oppression, do they really mean only for those non-Muslims in a position to negotiate some rights for themselves, and only for so long as Muslims choose to honour their agreement? Should we take this behaviour as indicative of the broader approach that Muslims have to respecting human rights? Do you think I am being unfair by cherry picking Muhammad's campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing rather than focus on all the nice things he did? How does the banning of pagans (and all non-Muslims) from their own Mecca for pagan ritual, and then the broader hejaz region, including Medina where they were supposedly protected by that constitution, fit in with your BS about pagans having rights? How do Muhammad's campaigns to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan monuments and shrines fit in with your lies about pagans having rights? And what about "tough titties, off with their heads"? Would you trust someone who said this about people they later insisted had rights? After Muhammad concocted this constitution that supposedly granted the citizens of Medina freedom of religion, how long was it until he threatened the Jews of Medina with slaughter if they did not convert to Islam? How long was it until he followed through with his threats and committed genocide? How long was it until Muslims started blaming the Jews for their own demise with mindless collectives of treacherous Jews memes? How long was it until pagans were banned from their own shrine in Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the city of Mecca? How long was it until pagans were banned from the region of Hejaz, including Medina? How long was it until Muhammad was launching raids to slaughter pagans and destroy competing pagan monuments and shrines? How do you expect people to take you seriously when you claim Muhammad granted non-Muslims basic human rights such as freedom of religion? Should people trust what Muslims say about human rights? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Sep 28th, 2018 at 11:29pm
Do you have a multiple choice, FD?
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 2:43pm freediver wrote on Sep 28th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
And as I pointed out before, they were "left out" only in the version that exists today which is generally agreed among historians to be a version written after the battle of the trench (after which the Qurayza obviously didn't exist). Historians have variously argued that the Qurayza were either in an earlier version, or had separate agreements especially for the jews: Quote:
https://www.academia.edu/14615939/_Banu_l-Nadir_Banu_Qaynuqa_Banu_Qurayza_and_Constitution_of_Medina_-_4_articles_in_Encyclopedia_of_Jews_in_the_Islamic_World freediver wrote on Sep 28th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Not to be petty FD, but if you want to talk about lies in this debate, then making the argument, as you did, that "historians" (plural) asserted that the treaty wasn't so much an agreement but a unilateral proclamation - when in fact it came from a single historian, Bernard Lewis, paraphrased from wikipedia - is about a clear-cut case of 'lying' as you can get. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 6th, 2018 at 7:02am Quote:
How many versions of the constitution are there? One for every act of genocide committed by Muhammad? Quote:
So you use the constitution to justify Muhammad's genocide, but can only speculate on the existence of a constitution they were party to? Quote:
Are you willing to claim that Lewis is the only historian to hold this view? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 9th, 2018 at 11:44am freediver wrote on Oct 6th, 2018 at 7:02am:
I've cited the opinions of actual historians who think so FD. You know, the trick you tried to do when you said "historians" believed it was not so much a treaty, but a unilateral declaration by Muhammad. Apparently when its convenient you see the value of relying on historians to back your case. Its just unfortunate that you can't even cite historians without lying about it. freediver wrote on Oct 6th, 2018 at 7:02am:
;D unbelievable. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 9th, 2018 at 7:08pm Quote:
You've cited a historian speculating that a constitution may have existed to which the Jews were a party. Muslims have invented around this an elaborate and detailed justification for Muhammad's genocide of the Jews. In which (of course) the Jews are to blame for Muhammad slaughtering them. Quote:
It's a simple question Gandalf. One you have not yet given a straight answer to. Do you think Lewis is the only historian to hold that view? If not, why would you pursue this line of argument, other than to play out the typical deceptive Muslim stereotype? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Oct 9th, 2018 at 8:03pm polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 11:44am:
You are giggling with embarrassment at being nailed, gandalf. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Karnal on Oct 10th, 2018 at 2:32am Frank wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 8:03pm:
You? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 10th, 2018 at 2:51pm freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 7:08pm:
Count with me FD - from the aforementioned source: 1. "Wellhausen proposed that the Nadīr, Qurayza, and Qaynuqā were in fact the Jewish groups in the document" 2. "Watt explained the absence of the three tribes as indicating that the document was redacted in the form preserved in the Sīra only aer the elimination of the Qurayza in 927." 3. "Others maintain that Muham-mad had separate nonbelligerency treaties with the three tribes and so had no need to include them here." Thats 2 sources arguing that the Qurayza were in a version of the COM (Watt's, as previously discussed, whole argument is that it was redacted to remove the Qurayza from the Treaty - therefore they were originally in it) - plus "others" (plural) who maintain there were separate nonbeligerency treaties with the jews, including the Qurayza. Or in other words, more than one. Quote:
As far as I know he is the only one. And I pursue it for one simple reason - you lied about it. pure and simple. You took a specific claim from a wikipedia article, that Bernard Lewis said such and such and you twisted that into "historians (plural) said such and such. Reverting to your standard "it can't be a lie because who knows, maybe someone else other than Lewis said it too" - doesn't make it not a lie. What a pathetic game you play here - one that you have played before. Blatantly falsify a source (wikipedia in this case) to claim it says something that it doesn't - then try the old 'prove a negative' rouse to wriggle out of it when you get sprung. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2018 at 8:24am Quote:
You seem to be more focused on counting the number of references than what they are actually saying. They all appear to be speculating on the existence of a treaty to which the Jews were a party. Muslims have invented around this an elaborate and detailed justification for Muhammad's genocide of the Jews. In which (of course) the Jews are to blame for Muhammad slaughtering them. Quote:
If you were a betting man, what odds would you place on being correct on this? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 15th, 2018 at 1:41pm freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2018 at 8:24am:
Well done FD, now can see the contradiction with this latest statement to the original: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2018 at 2:51pm:
So you've moved from 'you base it all on one historian speculating... to 'you base it on several historians speculating...". So, we'll mark that down as you making some progress. Well done. freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2018 at 8:24am:
Not very good. After all, you'd think wikipedia would have at least mentioned it, instead of citing only one. Not to mention the fact that if you really knew, you would have produced the other sources by now. So listen to your own logic: "I'll pick out a particular quote from wikipedia, it specifically says a single person made the claim, but instead I'll pretend its "historians" (plural) who said it." When caught out on it, your defense is literally "yeah but I reckon sometime, somewhere others said it, even though I have no clue who or when". FD can you explain to me how this is not lying? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 15th, 2018 at 6:15pm Quote:
There is nothing incorrect about what I posted Gandalf. You did cite a historian speculating on the existence of a treaty. Whether you also cited other historians is beside the point - which is that it is entirely speculative, and Muslims have taken speculation on the existence of a treaty to which the Jews were a party and extrapolated that to an elaborate justification for Muhammad committing genocide in which his victims are entirely to blame. Of course, I explained this at the time. Quote:
So as far as you know, you are probably wrong, but for some reason still demand I prove you wrong? Quote:
I doubt wikipedia has every come across someone so anal as to get hung up on whether to use singular or plural when they only give one example to support what is written. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 16th, 2018 at 7:44am freediver wrote on Oct 15th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Interesting. So do you often respond to someone citing multiple sources to back up their claim by saying "you only cited *A* historian" - and then argue that its "beside the point" that in fact I cited more than one? freediver wrote on Oct 15th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
When you refer to a single citation of Bernard Lewis as "historians" plural, it is not being anal to call you out on that lie FD. The truth is, this plural thing is a favourite ploy of yours - it obviously makes your BS claims sound more compelling if you pretend its multiple people backing up your claim. You famously did it with the "muslims (plural) claim [something incriminating and sinister]" - when you saw no one except me saying it. Clearly you believe it boosts your case if you can pretend that multiple muslims said something incriminating, do get the whole 'mindless collective' effect. You also used exactly the same defense as you are using now - the old "you can't prove that no one else didn't say it" ruse. The only real question here is do you actually buy this absurd logical fallacy of insisting that until someone "proves a negative", your BS claim is legit. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 16th, 2018 at 8:09am Quote:
Do you often accusing people of often doing things they have not done once? Quote:
When did I do that? Quote:
Would you say it is so compelling that it is very unlikely Lewis is the only historian to hold that view? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 16th, 2018 at 8:30am Quote:
When you took wikipedia paraphrasing Bernard Lewis saying the Treaty of Medina was likely a unilateral proclamation, rather than an agreement - and claimed it was "historians" plural who said it. Or are you now denying you did this? Does this mean you are acknowledging it is a dishonest thing to do and you are now claiming you would never do such a dishonest thing? Or are you still maintaining that lying about what a source said is not dishonest or wrong in any wayt - b based on the speculation that maybe somewhere sometime someone else did actually say it too? freediver wrote on Oct 16th, 2018 at 8:09am:
Ah, so having a bob each way I see. "I didn't do it, but if I did it wouldn't be wrong" - is that where we are at? |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 16th, 2018 at 9:18am Quote:
I am suggesting that you are again misrepresenting what I posted - in a trivial sense. You appear to do this in order to dodge the fairly obvious point - that Muslims have taken speculation by some historians of the existence of a treaty to which the Jews were a party and used it to manufacture an elaborate excuse in which the Jews are to blame for Muhammad's genocide of them. Quote:
I am saying that I stand by what I said, and that even you think it is most likely correct, but you only argue the minutia in order to dodge Muhammad's genocide. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 16th, 2018 at 9:44am freediver wrote on Oct 16th, 2018 at 9:18am:
LOL no I didn't FD. I literally said the exact opposite: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 15th, 2018 at 1:41pm:
By the way this is not a "trivial" misrepresentation of what I said. freediver wrote on Oct 16th, 2018 at 9:18am:
Good point FD. Catching you out on your dishonestly in claiming multiple historians made the claim that only Bernard Lewis made, is "only arguing the minutiae". |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 16th, 2018 at 10:15am
So you think it is normal for wikipedia to cite 2 sources on the grounds that if they only cite one it implies there is only one academic in the field who holds that view?
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 16th, 2018 at 12:56pm
I think you are deflecting from the fact that you took that wiki citation and lied about it. You know, the usual story with you.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by freediver on Oct 16th, 2018 at 2:58pm
Quote me.
|
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by gandalf on Oct 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm
you took a wikipedia quote that paraphrased Bernard Lewis making the claim that the Treaty of Medina was not so much an agreement but a unilateral proclamation, and you said that "historians" (plural) had made that claim.
Why would I make that up? We both know thats exactly what you did. Even more absurdly, you have spent pages defending this by saying there's nothing wrong with it because I don't know that multiple historians didn't make that claim. So you're literally saying there was nothing wrong with you attributing a plurality of historians to a claim you heard attributed to one historian (on the absurd "go prove a negative" false logic) - while at the same time implying that you never actually did that. Or in other words, just another day in the FD wibble wabble wibble wabble routine. |
Title: Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Post by Frank on Oct 22nd, 2018 at 6:30pm polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm:
So Wkipedia provides only the Bernard Lewis quote and FD takes that to be the position of Bernard Lewis PLUS at least one other historian who is not named - and so you now grinning like karnal/Bwian/gweggy. As if Bernard Lewis had no students, no disciples, no historians building on his immense contribution - just because Wikipedia doesn't mention them? If you are the pupil of the Islamic Golden Age then it is as over-hyped and superficial as we have all suspected it to be. You are Bwianesque. |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |