Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 18
Send Topic Print
Dhimmitude is against oppression? (Read 28928 times)
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 40425
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #165 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 9:16pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 9:12pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Did the constitution of Medina apply to all pagans?


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:
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?


And there goes FD on 'meme generator' mode again.

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Can we start with what I actually said?


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.



Would you like to be a dhimmi?  Your daughters and wives to be dhimmis?

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #166 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 10:01am
 
freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:21pm:
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.


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.
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: 92199
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #167 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:35am
 
Frank wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 9:12pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Did the constitution of Medina apply to all pagans?


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:
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?


And there goes FD on 'meme generator' mode again.

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Can we start with what I actually said?


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.



Would you like to be a dhimmi? 



Bloody oath, son.

Quote:
Non-Muslims are not obliged to take part in the Muslims' religious wars.[29]
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92199
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #168 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:38am
 
Yes, G, but you forgot to answer this.

freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:21pm:
Did the Jews have the right to keep their head attached to their body?


FD says you're too scared to say.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47316
At my desk.
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #169 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm
 
Quote:
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.


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?
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: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #170 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
They are not actually rights if you give them and take them away on a whim Gandalf.


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:
Which is of course, why you are afraid to give a straight answer.


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.
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: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #171 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
Quote:
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.


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?


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.
Back to top
 

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47316
At my desk.
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #172 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 7:01pm
 
Quote:
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.


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:
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".


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?
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: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #173 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:34am
 
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?


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:
It was genocide Gandalf. First the Jews, then later all non-Muslims were expelled from the area.


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.
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: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #174 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:37am
 
Auggie wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:12pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm:
Quote:
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.


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?


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.


FD has proven time and time again he has little comprehension of what burden of proof actually entails.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47316
At my desk.
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #175 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:19pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:34am:
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?


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.


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?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 92199
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #176 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 1:12pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 9:34am:
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?


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:
It was genocide Gandalf. First the Jews, then later all non-Muslims were expelled from the area.


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.


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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #177 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 3:15pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:19pm:
Do you consider it misleading for Muslims to claim Muhammad "extended rights to pagans" when he only negotiated with a particular group of pagans?



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:
The Constitution of Medina, a formal agreement between Muhammad and all the significant tribes and families of Medina (including Muslims, Jews and pagans), declared that non-Muslims in the Ummah had the following rights:[131]

The security (dhimma) of God is equal for all groups,[132]
Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[133]
Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[134]
Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[135]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Constitution_of_Medina

Quote:
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?


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?
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: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #178 - 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.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 40425
Gender: male
Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #179 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 8:46pm
 
Frank wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Would you like to be a dhimmi?  Your daughters and wives to be dhimmis?


Gandalf, you are avoiding the point - would you be happy for your daughters and wives to be dhimmis?

(paki the Vietnam war veteran ( Cheesy) indicated that he would submit to anything as long as he didn't have defend his 'cuntry', a place he abhors).

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 18
Send Topic Print