Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 22
Send Topic Print
chapter 9 (Read 50123 times)
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91849
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #240 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 2:10pm
 
Looks like FD doesn't want to say.

Yes, G, FD has hit the end of the ethical road on this one. He can't logically condemn Islamic texts without condemning the laws of the Jews, which he repeatedly refuses to do.

More, FD can't show us how Muslims can be "compelled" by their sinister prophet while Jews aren't. There has been no shift or rewrite of Jewish law. Jews believe it was handed down by G_d. Seeking to alter the law in any way is considered an act of blasphemy, which is still a capital offence under Jewish law.

The ancient Judaic laws are there for all to see. They are far crueler than anything in the Koran. It is telling that all FD can come up with is Chapter 9, which in comparison to Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, reads as a treatise of ancient law reform. Chapter 9 defines the only lawful killing of others as acts of self-defence. The Torah, by contrast, promotes the killing and enslavement of random populations - anyone the ancient Jewish rulers felt like invading so as to expand their territories and kill off rival populations.

FD's silence on this is a form of agreement. He can't possibly defend Jewish laws as nicer or more liberal than ancient Muslims. The oppression, cruelty and blood-lust of the Old Testament is there for all to see.

Unfortunately for FD, this eats out his entire case on Islam and its followers. If the Jews aren't cruel, bloodthirsty oppressors based on their religious texts and the "example" of their prophets, why are Muslims?

Without an answer to this, FD is left with his inbreeding thesis and his "plausible theory" of the negative impact of "Negroid" genes.

As you can see, for FD, it does boil down to race after all.

And as you can also see, FD doesn't want to say.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #241 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 2:15pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am:
You keep making reference to non-Muslims who come to Muslims seeking protection, as if this somehow negates all the promotion of organised violence.


What? I literally said nothing about this in this entire thread. Why on earth would you bring this up out of the blue now?

freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am:
What obligations does verse 1 refer to?


Upholding treaties that are continually violated. Verse 1 puts the Mushriken on notice, that Allah and Muhammad no longer have an obligation towards the treaties with Mushriken - with the exception, as expressed in verse 4, of those who have remained true to their treaties. Again, what you are still unable to reconcile is the fact that these Mushriken (those with a treaty) are the only Mushriken that are ever mentioned in the entire chapter. Yet you still insist that its referring to other Mushriken - without actually saying so.

freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am:
but you expect us to believe there is an implicit exclusion all the way back in verse 1


Funnily enough, I read what it actually says, which is:

Quote:
Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.


Question for FD: is it specifying a particular group of Mushriken here? (hint this is not a trick question). Supplementary question, are any other Mushriken other than those "with whom you made a treaty" mentioned anywhere in chapter 9 - ever? And if not, why on earth should we believe that any of the commands pertaining to mushriken in this chapter would apply to any other mushriken besides the only ones that are specifically referred to? Try not to over think this FD.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #242 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:18pm
 
Quote:
Yes, and my question is how can Moses' directive to kill and enslave entire cities is somehow preferable to your quoted verse. Let's see if FD wants to answer.

&

If the Jews aren't cruel, bloodthirsty oppressors based on their religious texts and the "example" of their prophets, why are Muslims?


The apologists for islamic terrorism are out in force.

Twisting and turning as they desperately try to create a smokescreen around the fact that Moses' directives are entirely restricted  to the period of time of the exodus. As the Hebrews journeyed towards the promised land.

However Moses never entered the promised land, it was after Moses had died that the Hebrews were lead by Joshua to capture the promised land.

The promised land had defined borders and people:

...

So the reason the Jews don't participate in world wide religious terrorism as muslims do is?

The conquest of the promised land is long gone ancient history (over done and finished). Also they have no religious doctrine which tells them the must be terrorists today 2017.

Conversely islam is an endless doctrine of hate against all non muslims and muslims considered to be hypocrites.

There are no time limits or geographical boundaries in the qur'ans' instructions to kill the infidel.

Consequently islam divides the world into two parts dar al-Islam literally the house or region of submission  and  dar  al-Harb  the house or region of war.

muslim terrorists who are engaged in slaughtering of innocent men women and children today 2017 are doctrinally correct and are even described as the highest grade of muslim, guaranteed a place in islamic paradise with a never ending supply of houris with big breasts and little boys.

The muslims and apologists know they can't review the islamic doctrine of hate (which would be positive step in stopping islamic terrorism) without destroying islam, (revising so called infallible never to changed doctrine, means it is fallible, so islam dies).

Which means muslims and their apologists will do and say anything to avoid a reformation of islams' terrorist ism, they are quiet happy with the status quo of global bloodshed death and destruction.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #243 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm
 
Quote:
Again, what you are still unable to reconcile is the fact that these Mushriken (those with a treaty) are the only Mushriken that are ever mentioned in the entire chapter.


Wrong. There are several references to Mushriken in general, for example in verses 3 and 5. Or are you attempting to argue that a verse cannot refer to Mushriken in general unless it is a specific reference to a subset of the group? Is this how Islamic logic works?

Quote:
Question for FD: is it specifying a particular group of Mushriken here? (hint this is not a trick question). Supplementary question, are any other Mushriken other than those "with whom you made a treaty" mentioned anywhere in chapter 9 - ever? And if not, why on earth should we believe that any of the commands pertaining to mushriken in this chapter would apply to any other mushriken besides the only ones that are specifically referred to?


Because it refers to Mushriken in general, and there is nothing to suggest that one reference to a particular subgroup should be interpreted as applying as a limitation throughout the chapter.

Verse 1: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligation to Mushriken with a treaty.

Verse 3: To all people: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligations to Mushriken.

Verse 4: Except for those Mushriken who have a treaty and do not violate it.

Verse 5: Slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them, but not during the holy months and not if they convert to Islam.


How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs, as well as the text of the Koran?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91849
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #244 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 8:00pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:18pm:
Quote:
Yes, and my question is how can Moses' directive to kill and enslave entire cities is somehow preferable to your quoted verse. Let's see if FD wants to answer.

&

If the Jews aren't cruel, bloodthirsty oppressors based on their religious texts and the "example" of their prophets, why are Muslims?


The apologists for islamic terrorism are out in force.

Twisting and turning as they desperately try to create a smokescreen around the fact that Moses' directives are entirely restricted  to the period of time of the exodus. As the Hebrews journeyed towards the promised land.

However Moses never entered the promised land, it was after Moses had died that the Hebrews were lead by Joshua to capture the promised land.

The promised land had defined borders and people:

http://www.differentspirit.org/articles/images/promised_land2.jpg

So the reason the Jews don't participate in world wide religious terrorism as muslims do is?

The conquest of the promised land is long gone ancient history (over done and finished). Also they have no religious doctrine which tells them the must be terrorists today 2017.

Conversely islam is an endless doctrine of hate against all non muslims and muslims considered to be hypocrites.

There are no time limits or geographical boundaries in the qur'ans' instructions to kill the infidel.

Consequently islam divides the world into two parts dar al-Islam literally the house or region of submission  and  dar  al-Harb  the house or region of war.

muslim terrorists who are engaged in slaughtering of innocent men women and children today 2017 are doctrinally correct and are even described as the highest grade of muslim, guaranteed a place in islamic paradise with a never ending supply of houris with big breasts and little boys.

The muslims and apologists know they can't review the islamic doctrine of hate (which would be positive step in stopping islamic terrorism) without destroying islam, (revising so called infallible never to changed doctrine, means it is fallible, so islam dies).

Which means muslims and their apologists will do and say anything to avoid a reformation of islams' terrorist ism, they are quiet happy with the status quo of global bloodshed death and destruction.


Who promised the promised land, Moses?

I'm curious.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91849
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #245 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm:
Quote:
Again, what you are still unable to reconcile is the fact that these Mushriken (those with a treaty) are the only Mushriken that are ever mentioned in the entire chapter.


Wrong. There are several references to Mushriken in general, for example in verses 3 and 5. Or are you attempting to argue that a verse cannot refer to Mushriken in general unless it is a specific reference to a subset of the group? Is this how Islamic logic works?

Quote:
Question for FD: is it specifying a particular group of Mushriken here? (hint this is not a trick question). Supplementary question, are any other Mushriken other than those "with whom you made a treaty" mentioned anywhere in chapter 9 - ever? And if not, why on earth should we believe that any of the commands pertaining to mushriken in this chapter would apply to any other mushriken besides the only ones that are specifically referred to?


Because it refers to Mushriken in general, and there is nothing to suggest that one reference to a particular subgroup should be interpreted as applying as a limitation throughout the chapter.

Verse 1: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligation to Mushriken with a treaty.

Verse 3: To all people: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligations to Mushriken.

Verse 4: Except for those Mushriken who have a treaty and do not violate it.

Verse 5: Slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them, but not during the holy months and not if they convert to Islam.


How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs, as well as the text of the Koran?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?


FD, have you ever considered becoming a fanatical, world-conquering imam and sitting on a Sharia council?

That's a question. G, a Muselman, seems to take issue with your Koranic jurisprudence.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #246 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:07am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm:
Verse 1: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligation to Mushriken with a treaty.

Verse 3: To all people: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligations to Mushriken.

Verse 4: Except for those Mushriken who have a treaty and do not violate it.

Verse 5: Slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them, but not during the holy months and not if they convert to Islam.


Well done FD - this is a damn sight better interpretation than your original version - wouldn't you agree? Thank you for actually putting the sequence of events in the right order - rather than insisting that the command to kill came first.

freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm:
Wrong. There are several references to Mushriken in general, for example in verses 3 and 5. Or are you attempting to argue that a verse cannot refer to Mushriken in general unless it is a specific reference to a subset of the group? Is this how Islamic logic works?


Perhaps if I explained how common sense works, that might help. When a chapter opens up in its very first verse as a declaration towards a particular group of people, and then never specifies any other particular group, it is reasonable to assume that any subsequent mention of that group in the general sense, is referring only to that specific group.

And by the way, there are no Islamic scholars who dispute the fact that this chapter is directed only at Mushriken to whom a treaty was made with the muslims.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #247 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:12am
 
The first verse is a self contained declaration. No different from verse 3.

How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs, as well as the text of the Koran?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #248 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 10:56am
 
FD, what possible purpose do you think you are serving repeatedly asking questions I have already said are irrelevant?

They are not at odds with Muhammad's behaviour, they are perfectly consistent - his conduct surrounding the treaty of hudaybiyyah being just one example. As for the rightly guided caliphs, you are of course referring to a single unsourced reference from wikipedia that you insist we believe as gospel truth for no other reason than because its from wikipedia. As for 1st century scholars - as far as I know all Islamic scholars accept that chapter 9 is referring only to those Mushrikeen to whom a treaty had been made. If you know of a dissenting opinion, by all means present it for us.

freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:12am:
If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?


I think what you are saying here is that if a muslim insists that according to their Islamic beliefs, muslims should not go around killing unbelievers for being unbelievers - you must tell them that they are wrong and insist that they should be killing unbelievers for being unbelievers - and that any promotion of a "peaceful Islam" is just sneaky taqqiya. Thats what you mean by "call them out on their BS" - right?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #249 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm
 
Quote:
FD, what possible purpose do you think you are serving repeatedly asking questions I have already said are irrelevant?


I must have missed that.

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?

Quote:
They are not at odds with Muhammad's behaviour, they are perfectly consistent


freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".

Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


If you have already attempted to evade this one by dismissing it as irrelevant, feel free to post a link to your previous evasion.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #250 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
I must have missed that.


You tend to miss a lot of things relevant to a discussion.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91849
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #251 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:40pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
I must have missed that.


You tend to miss a lot of things relevant to a discussion.


Do you think he missed my questions?

FD won't say.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Moriaty
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 209
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #252 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:37pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
I must have missed that.


You tend to miss a lot of things relevant to a discussion.


The only thing FD ever misses is supporting evidence and the point of an argument. Other than that he's ALL OVER it.
Back to top
 

Defend Free-speech. Say no to censorship on this forum! Defend the freedoms our soldiers fought for against the Fascist-racist forces of evil!
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #253 - Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm
 
How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?

Quote:
They are not at odds with Muhammad's behaviour, they are perfectly consistent


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #254 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


You mean right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him? You have a habit of leaving that little detail out.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 22
Send Topic Print