Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20
Send Topic Print
Muhammad as the anti-christ (Read 22048 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #150 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 10:00am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:22pm:
Quote:
Good question FD. I believe I asked you that exact same question when you made your BS claim about Islam recruitment only starting when potential followers saw the attraction of slaughtering innocent and defenceless caravaners.


No Gandalf. I asked you the question. I have asked it every time you use this excuse, to highlight the absurdity of your excuses. How does Muhammad's mistreatment by some people in Meccca justify an entirely different group of Muslims using it as an excuse to murder and steal from an entirely different group of Meccans? This is the evil of Islam.



No really FD, I asked you. 7 days ago, to be exact - here it is again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2nd, 2018 at 11:15am:
freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 7:56pm:
Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.


Quote:
For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.


Good point FD. Now if you wouldn't mind just furnishing me with some figures (with evidence preferably) for the pre and post first caravan raid muslim population. Just a ballpark figure will do.

thanks.


Oh surprise surprise, you ducked and weaved from it.

Why is this important? Because your BS claim that the caravan raids were carried out (at least in part) by a population that were not involved in the hijra - is completely baseless. But once again, as you always do, you state it as unquestioned fact.

As it happens, we know you are wrong. The caravan raids were carried out entirely by the emigrants (muhajirun) - which a simple search on wikipedia would have told you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhajirun

And while we're on the subject of BS claims, lets also dispense with your claim that it was "years" between the hijra and the first raids. The hijra happened in sometime between June and September 622, and the first raid happened between January and March the following year - well under one year later.
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: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #151 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 10:03am
 
FD, a simple question:

do you think its important bringing actual facts to the table when debating actual history?

When you have been proven wrong so many times on specific points of historical fact, do you think it delegitimises your argument? Even just a little bit?

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: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #152 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 10:10am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 10:03am:
FD, a simple question:

do you think its important bringing actual facts to the table when debating actual history?

When you have been proven wrong so many times on specific points of historical fact, do you think it delegitimises your argument? Even just a little bit?



Not at all. FD uses alternative facts. FD upholds the use of porkies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #153 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:21am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:02pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:20pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:38pm:
what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.


The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.


Oh, come on. The Bible isn't?

You must have missed the opening verse, dear.


The point is that there is a tradition of hermeneutics in Christianity which looks at each text as being written by specific followers of the disciples many years after the fact. Paul’s letters were written by him to different communities.

Now there are Christians who say that those people were divinely inspired; but there’s still wiggle room in interpretation.

The Quran on the other hand is considered to be the unalterable word of god. As a Muslim you can’t say that the texts were written by people after the fact (even though that is likely the case). To a Muslim the Quran is the literal word of God, chapter and verse.
Back to top
 

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


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #154 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:22am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:18pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 5:39pm:
Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.


How is asking for clarification about what you have written "below the belt"?

Quote:
The answer is no: as Gandalf admitted before, you can’t have an ‘anything goes’ approach with religion. We have to identify certain objective beliefs about religion and about what those people believe.

Anything else is just a lie.


So, belief has nothing to do with religion?  My, how interesting...   Roll Eyes


I thought you were having a snipe at my incorrect grammar. If I’m mistaken, I apologise.

Second, I don’t believe I was saying that.
Back to top
 

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


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #155 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:23am
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:03pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:36pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:09pm:
Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?


LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?




I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God


Please address this point.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #156 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:40am
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:21am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:02pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:20pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:38pm:
what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.


The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.


Oh, come on. The Bible isn't?

You must have missed the opening verse, dear.


The point is that there is a tradition of hermeneutics in Christianity which looks at each text as being written by specific followers of the disciples many years after the fact. Paul’s letters were written by him to different communities.

Now there are Christians who say that those people were divinely inspired; but there’s still wiggle room in interpretation.

The Quran on the other hand is considered to be the unalterable word of god. As a Muslim you can’t say that the texts were written by people after the fact (even though that is likely the case). To a Muslim the Quran is the literal word of God, chapter and verse.


So's the Bible. The Quran was written (or dictated) by one man: Muhammed. It's hardly the literal word of God - much of it is allegorical.

Because of this, Muslim scholars are tasked with interpreting the message of the Quran.

The Ahadith were written by others. They're second or third hand witnesses of Muhammed - maybe. They are not the literal word of God, as every Muslim schoolboy knows.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #157 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:42pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 10:00am:
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:22pm:
Quote:
Good question FD. I believe I asked you that exact same question when you made your BS claim about Islam recruitment only starting when potential followers saw the attraction of slaughtering innocent and defenceless caravaners.


No Gandalf. I asked you the question. I have asked it every time you use this excuse, to highlight the absurdity of your excuses. How does Muhammad's mistreatment by some people in Meccca justify an entirely different group of Muslims using it as an excuse to murder and steal from an entirely different group of Meccans? This is the evil of Islam.



No really FD, I asked you. 7 days ago, to be exact - here it is again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2nd, 2018 at 11:15am:
freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 7:56pm:
Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.


Quote:
For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.


Good point FD. Now if you wouldn't mind just furnishing me with some figures (with evidence preferably) for the pre and post first caravan raid muslim population. Just a ballpark figure will do.

thanks.


Oh surprise surprise, you ducked and weaved from it.

Why is this important? Because your BS claim that the caravan raids were carried out (at least in part) by a population that were not involved in the hijra - is completely baseless. But once again, as you always do, you state it as unquestioned fact.

As it happens, we know you are wrong. The caravan raids were carried out entirely by the emigrants (muhajirun) - which a simple search on wikipedia would have told you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhajirun

And while we're on the subject of BS claims, lets also dispense with your claim that it was "years" between the hijra and the first raids. The hijra happened in sometime between June and September 622, and the first raid happened between January and March the following year - well under one year later.


Gandalf, I asked you many times for the numbers prior to that.

Also, that wikipedia article says the opposite of what you claim it says. Did you read it?

Quote:
do you think its important bringing actual facts to the table when debating actual history?


Yes Gandalf, that's why I have asked you so many times for the numbers of followers.

Quote:
When you have been proven wrong so many times on specific points of historical fact, do you think it delegitimises your argument? Even just a little bit?


Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?
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: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #158 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:35pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:23am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:03pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:36pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:09pm:
Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?


LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?




I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God


Please address this point.


Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.
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
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #159 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:43pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:22am:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:18pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 5:39pm:
Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.


How is asking for clarification about what you have written "below the belt"?

Quote:
The answer is no: as Gandalf admitted before, you can’t have an ‘anything goes’ approach with religion. We have to identify certain objective beliefs about religion and about what those people believe.

Anything else is just a lie.


So, belief has nothing to do with religion?  My, how interesting...   Roll Eyes


I thought you were having a snipe at my incorrect grammar. If I’m mistaken, I apologise.


I was asking what you actually meant.  It had as I suggested, two alternative versions.  If I want to have a go at your grammar, I will.

Quote:
Second, I don’t believe I was saying that.


So, belief is important then?   I am somewhat confused.  You appear to be saying that belief has no place in ascertaining what religions believe in.    Roll Eyes
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2018 at 5:55pm by Brian Ross »  

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #160 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:49pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:42pm:
Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?


Yes.

Now drawing on your knowledge of that wiki article I posted, would you describe this claim of yours as accurate?

Quote:
For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.


Also, do you acknowledge you were wrong to claim it was "years" between the hijra and the first caravan raid?
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: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #161 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 4:29pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:35pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:23am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:03pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:36pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:09pm:
Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?


LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?




I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God


Please address this point.


Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.


So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #162 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 6:08pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 4:29pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:35pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:23am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:03pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:36pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:09pm:
Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?


LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?




I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God


Please address this point.


Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.


So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?


Are they commands to launch specific battles, or more general guidelines for the conduct of war?
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
 
goldkam
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 292
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #163 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 6:13pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 4:29pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:35pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:23am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 6:03pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:36pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:09pm:
Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?


LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?




I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God


Please address this point.


Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.


So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?


Of course they were not. When we imply rationality in these situations, these were commanded by ones education, ethics and morals.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #164 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 6:15pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 2:49pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:42pm:
Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?


Yes.

Now drawing on your knowledge of that wiki article I posted, would you describe this claim of yours as accurate?

Quote:
For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.


Also, do you acknowledge you were wrong to claim it was "years" between the hijra and the first caravan raid?


Another grammatical issue, G. Most is only 4 letters, including the letter s.

Now come on. You stop being so mean to FD.

Can't you just blame Islam?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20
Send Topic Print