Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25
Send Topic Print
trees rocks talk donkeys fly (Read 46255 times)
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #315 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:41pm:
I did not mean to imply a difference, just that Islam applies to Muslims. Muhamamd does not limit warfare in general to the standard of self defence or proportional response. But he does not how to talk about the concepts of self defence and proportionality, plainly and clearly, and he does so in the Quran. Just not in any of the verses Gandalf has been citing.


But, didn't you admit previously that he does prescribe limitations in general warfare, but not in 'Islamic' warfare. You still haven't explained yourself properly.

Either he did prescribe limitations, or he didn't? Clearly there is evidence that he did prescribe limitations, as you yourself have admitted.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #316 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
That would make sense if proportional response was stipulated as a limit elsewhere. It is not. Again, Muhammad does talk about proportional response in warfare, plainly and clearly, but does not limit Islamic warfare to this standard.


Good news FD, I finally tracked down the thread in which you found this apparent "plain and clear" proportional response to warfare.

Its just a shame you seem to have missed my refutation of the claim that it must be in reference to warfare, rather than civil/legal matters:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 11:58am:
The word that submission.org translates as "attack" is the arabic اعتدي - which is more commonly translated as "assault" or "violate". Quran.com translates it as 'transgressed' and 'violate', which certainly does fit in a a civil/legal context. Additionally, the phrase that gives permission for retribution describes the object in the singular, not the plural ("him" - as in 'you can retaliate the equivalent against 'him' - arabic عليه "upon him"). This would be a strange way to express how to retaliate against a pluarity - eg an attacking army.


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
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #317 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:24pm
 
Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:33pm:
So, is it fair to say that revelation didn't stop with Muhammad per se, but continued in the actions of its practitioners??? A kind of progressive revelation???


No.

Quote:
Complete obedience to God (I don't like the word 'Allah') is all that is necessary to be a Muslim??? If you think about it, that's all that Muhammad called for in the Meccan period. He was but a Warner; but as he had to govern a community, then the realities sank in, and he had to protect his community, which he achieved.


And herein lies the source of disagreement about things like hudud law. Legal rulings allegedly made by Muhammad were made as someone who was head of an actual state. Why are they necessarily interpreted as demonstrating God's law applicable to any time and place? They shouldn't, IMO. Its a contention that Christians don't have to worry about - because unlike Muhammad, Jesus didn't have the responsibility of running a state.

Quote:
But, what about inheritance laws?? Or laws concerning women?? Are these abrogated by 'rational' laws??? If you had the keys to an empty Kingdom and wanted to make it Islamic, would you implement these laws??? Or would you use a rational process to make laws???


Not sure what you are referring to specifically, but if you look at all laws relating to women, they are always improvements on what they had pre-Islam. My interpretation is that it seeks to elevate women towards equality with men, but takes an evolutionary approach. It was intended, IMO, to specify only a minimum, which can absolutely be improved upon. Specifying this minimum was important in a society in which women hitherto had literally nothing - but was probably unrealistic to go straight to full equality.
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
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #318 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 3:55pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:24pm:
Why are they necessarily interpreted as demonstrating God's law applicable to any time and place? They shouldn't, IMO


I refer you to 5:3, which states: "Prohibited to you are...... This day I have perfected for you your religion (i.e. being Islam) and completed My favour upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion...."

Doesn't this verse indicate, being one of the final revelations during the prophethood of Mohammad, that the religion of Islam is 'perfect', which means that its tenets and ayats are applicable for all time, and are universal??? If you argue that the Quran is contextual, then it can't be perfect, can it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:24pm:
Its a contention that Christians don't have to worry about - because unlike Muhammad, Jesus didn't have the responsibility of running a state.


Ah, but this is thing. Jesus had a choice - he could've become a leader and succumbed to the realities of politics, or he could've become a martyr and sacrificed himself. He chose the later. Muhammad chose the former. That tells me a huge difference in character between the two. Once chooses sacrifice and humiliation; the other choose glory and power.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:24pm:
Not sure what you are referring to specifically,


I refer you to 4:11: "God instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters or more, for them is two-thirds of one estate. And if there is only one, for her if half. And for one's parents, to each of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children...."

This indicates a law of inheritance. See?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:24pm:
Specifying this minimum was important in a society in which women hitherto had literally nothing - but was probably unrealistic to go straight to full equality.


Which is why I mentioned the term 'progressive revelation'. It's all good and well to say that Muhammad made reforms to women's rights compared to the time (and I agree); but there's no theological basis to say that 'evolution' or 'progress' should continue, given that the revelation ended with Muhammad's death.

The religion was perfected in Surah 5, which means that no other progress is needed or accorded. Do you get my drift?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #319 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:20pm
 
Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 3:55pm:
Doesn't this verse indicate, being one of the final revelations during the prophethood of Mohammad, that the religion of Islam is 'perfect', which means that its tenets and ayats are applicable for all time, and are universal??? If you argue that the Quran is contextual, then it can't be perfect, can it?


Thats got nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about how Muhammad's behaviour and actions as ruler of an earthly state shouldn't be considered as demonstrations God's law and is applicable for all time and places. Unfortunately though, many muslims do believe this should be the case. As far as I'm concerned, God's law is spiritual and personal, and is adequately described in the Quran - without any need to trawl through the ahadith to find instructions on every conceivable action and behaviour.

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 3:55pm:
Ah, but this is thing. Jesus had a choice - he could've become a leader and succumbed to the realities of politics, or he could've become a martyr and sacrificed himself. He chose the later. Muhammad chose the former. That tells me a huge difference in character between the two. Once chooses sacrifice and humiliation; the other choose glory and power.


To be fair, I don't think Jesus really had a choice about being a political leader - he lived under the brutal yoke of the most powerful empire that ever existed. Any move to lead any sort of independent jewish movement would have lasted about 5 minutes - and Jesus was smart enough to realise this. Deciding therefore to play the whole hippie/pacifist game wasn't some great sacrifice on his part, it was merely an acknowledgement of the political reality he found himself in.

As for Muhammad, hows this for a twist on your narrative: Muhammad enjoyed a high status in Mecca thanks to his family, and he was a privileged member of the dominant clan. Furthermore, he married one of, if not the richest merchants in town. Political power in Mecca was easily within reach where he was. If it was power and glory he was after, he could easily have got it leading the Quraysh pagans to any conquests he achieved under the Medinans. Instead what did he do? He gave up all his status and privilege his clan afforded him, and made himself the enemy of the elites by siding with the outcasts and downtrodden in society. Lets be reasonable here - if he was a greedy opportunist seeking power and glory, what it his end game here? relinquish all the status and wealth he already had and risk his life standing up for social justice - thinking what? Not even Muhammad had any inkling at this stage that he would lead a few dozen refugees to Medina and eventually create a state of his own there. In fact he only went to Medina because he was forced to flee for his life when the Quraysh tried to kill him.

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 3:55pm:
Which is why I mentioned the term 'progressive revelation'. It's all good and well to say that Muhammad made reforms to women's rights compared to the time (and I agree); but there's no theological basis to say that 'evolution' or 'progress' should continue, given that the revelation ended with Muhammad's death.

The religion was perfected in Surah 5, which means that no other progress is needed or accorded. Do you get my drift?


Yes I get your drift, but it is looking at the Quran in only one narrow viewpoint IMO. What if the "revelation" was actually to tell muslims to think for themselves - to be rational and flexible with how they run their lives?
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
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #320 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:29pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 15th, 2018 at 7:20pm:
He does talk about limiting war to self defence and proportional response in the Quran. He does not limit Islamic warfare to this standard. But he does know how to put a just war doctrine into words when that is his intended meaning .


Yes, FD did say this.

Looks like Moh wrote down all these things he didn't actually think.

Google: taqiyya.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #321 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:31pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:20pm:
Thats got nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about how Muhammad's behaviour and actions as ruler of an earthly state shouldn't be considered as demonstrations God's law and is applicable for all time and places.


Ok, hold on a sec. The Quran is considered to be the literal Word of God, am I correct? Therefore, any command or prescription ayat is to be considered the literal command of God. Therefore, if the Quran says that a woman gets one-third of inheritance, then this is presumed to be an absolute command that applies throughout all of time (as an example). Another example is Surah 9, which gives instructions on how to deal with 'those with whom you have a treaty'. Whatever one's interpretation of that may be, those instructions are God's Words and command.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:20pm:
but it is looking at the Quran in only one narrow viewpoint IMO. What if the "revelation" was actually to tell muslims to think for themselves - to be rational and flexible with how they run their lives?


Well, you might view Islam in that way, do many of your Muslims peers (I know not the majority) believe that too? Why do many Muslims and jurists believe that Islam is a way of life?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #322 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:33pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
That would make sense if proportional response was stipulated as a limit elsewhere. It is not. Again, Muhammad does talk about proportional response in warfare, plainly and clearly, but does not limit Islamic warfare to this standard. So it is not a translation or communication issue. It's just not there. There are, however, no end of calls to disproportionate slaughter, such as the entirety of chapter 9, and reinforced by the actual slaughtering conducted by Muhammad.


FD, how much of Chapter 9 have you actually read?

Please explain.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #323 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 7:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:41pm:
I did not mean to imply a difference, just that Islam applies to Muslims. Muhamamd does not limit warfare in general to the standard of self defence or proportional response. But he does know how to talk about the concepts of self defence and proportionality, plainly and clearly, and he does so in the Quran. Just not in any of the verses Gandalf has been citing.


So which ones?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #324 - Jan 16th, 2018 at 9:21pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:01pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
That would make sense if proportional response was stipulated as a limit elsewhere. It is not. Again, Muhammad does talk about proportional response in warfare, plainly and clearly, but does not limit Islamic warfare to this standard.


Good news FD, I finally tracked down the thread in which you found this apparent "plain and clear" proportional response to warfare.

Its just a shame you seem to have missed my refutation of the claim that it must be in reference to warfare, rather than civil/legal matters:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 11:58am:
The word that submission.org translates as "attack" is the arabic اعتدي - which is more commonly translated as "assault" or "violate". Quran.com translates it as 'transgressed' and 'violate', which certainly does fit in a a civil/legal context. Additionally, the phrase that gives permission for retribution describes the object in the singular, not the plural ("him" - as in 'you can retaliate the equivalent against 'him' - arabic عليه "upon him"). This would be a strange way to express how to retaliate against a pluarity - eg an attacking army.




Nice tapdancing Gandalf. Would you like to quote the verse for us? Or would that just serve to highlight how ludicrous your position is?

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:44pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 12:41pm:
I did not mean to imply a difference, just that Islam applies to Muslims. Muhamamd does not limit warfare in general to the standard of self defence or proportional response. But he does not how to talk about the concepts of self defence and proportionality, plainly and clearly, and he does so in the Quran. Just not in any of the verses Gandalf has been citing.


But, didn't you admit previously that he does prescribe limitations in general warfare, but not in 'Islamic' warfare. You still haven't explained yourself properly.

Either he did prescribe limitations, or he didn't? Clearly there is evidence that he did prescribe limitations, as you yourself have admitted.


He prescribed all sorts of limits. Don't kill women or goats or destroy anything else of value. And try not to let the women escape. Or the goats.

I did not state previously, nor do I now imply, any distinction between Islamic and general warfare. Obviously he would not bother inventing rules for non-Islamic warfare.

Quote:
And herein lies the source of disagreement about things like hudud law. Legal rulings allegedly made by Muhammad were made as someone who was head of an actual state. Why are they necessarily interpreted as demonstrating God's law applicable to any time and place? They shouldn't, IMO. Its a contention that Christians don't have to worry about - because unlike Muhammad, Jesus didn't have the responsibility of running a state.


Muhammad received many convenient revelations, now in the Quran, when he needed to motivate his followers to slaughter the infidel. The Quran basically reflects the immediate propaganda needs of a tribal leader transitioning from whiny victim to an angry, spiteful monster of rape and pillage. With a few flying donkey hallucinations along the way.

Quote:
To be fair, I don't think Jesus really had a choice about being a political leader - he lived under the brutal yoke of the most powerful empire that ever existed. Any move to lead any sort of independent jewish movement would have lasted about 5 minutes - and Jesus was smart enough to realise this. Deciding therefore to play the whole hippie/pacifist game wasn't some great sacrifice on his part


It was a cynical ploy to make Muslims look bad eh?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 16th, 2018 at 9:31pm by freediver »  

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


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #325 - Jan 17th, 2018 at 11:16am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 9:21pm:
He prescribed all sorts of limits. Don't kill women or goats or destroy anything else of value. And try not to let the women escape. Or the goats.

I did not state previously, nor do I now imply, any distinction between Islamic and general warfare. Obviously he would not bother inventing rules for non-Islamic warfare.


9:5 is clear, we all know what it means. What about 9:6 when it says: "And if one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may her the words of God. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are people who do not know."

9:6 is clear in that prescribes a limitation. In fact, the whole chapter is limited in scope itself because it refers specifically to those with whom a treaty has been made.


Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #326 - Jan 17th, 2018 at 11:55am
 
Quote:
because it refers specifically to those with whom a treaty has been made


The scope of chapter 9 is not, as Gandalf claims, limited to those with whom there is a treaty. Read the chapter. It simply does not make sense to conclude that.

Ghengis Khan offered protection to those who surrendered to him without a fight. This is not that same as saying he only conducted war in self defence and limited himself to a proportional response. It is standard divide and conquer military strategy - offer each group of enemies a choice between being slaughtered and joining you and sharing the spoils of your war.

Even a protection racketeer could put the same spin on their vile activities that Muslims do on the Quran and the actions of Muhammad. That is pretty much what Islam is. The "protection" that non-Muslims must be forced to seek is from Muslims under the compulsion to rape and pillage.

Once they were no longer a military and political threat or impediment to Muhammad's expanding empire, it made sense for Muhammad to incorporate those who remained alive into his state. It was how he imposed his religion on them, not to mention a good strategy for acquiring sex slaves. Note that in every passage Gandalf uses to justify his absurd claims, there is an onus on Muslims to go out and slaughter, and an onus on enemies to pursue peace. It is the protection of someone who wants to strip every right from you and take advantage of you in every way, in exchange for kindly sparing your life.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 17th, 2018 at 12:04pm by freediver »  

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: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #327 - Jan 17th, 2018 at 12:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 9:21pm:
Nice tapdancing Gandalf. Would you like to quote the verse for us?


Sure, here it is:



Quote:
الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا
                                                                                                       أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ


(hint: its read from right to left)

Feel free to re-read my explanation of it.
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: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #328 - Jan 17th, 2018 at 12:05pm
 
Thanks Gandalf. Now here's a Muslim with nothing to hide.
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: trees rocks talk donkeys fly
Reply #329 - Jan 17th, 2018 at 12:08pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2018 at 11:55am:
The scope of chapter 9 is not, as Gandalf claims, limited to those with whom there is a treaty. Read the chapter. It simply does not make sense to conclude that.


Good point FD. I mean, its not like it opens the chapter in the very first sentence of the very first verse by making a declaration to those whom you had a treaty with - 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
 
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25
Send Topic Print