Australian Politics Forum - Dhimmitude is against oppression?

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92275
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #225 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 12:08am

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:27pm:

The old boy is the perpetual Jizzya. He flew here, refuses to assimilate.

Lucky we're a multicultural bunch, no?

You paki arsebandits are. Don't pretend to speak for the sane and honourable and decent people.

Sorry, old boy, I'm British.

Yeah, sure you are.

Shure I am.

You?

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.

Not at all, old boy. Karnal's the Australian. You flew here, remember?

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92275
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #226 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 12:10am

Yadda wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

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.

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.

You flew here too, Y, remember? You came here on a broom.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 40516
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #227 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 8:29am

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 12:08am:

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:27pm:

The old boy is the perpetual Jizzya. He flew here, refuses to assimilate.

Lucky we're a multicultural bunch, no?

You paki arsebandits are. Don't pretend to speak for the sane and honourable and decent people.

Sorry, old boy, I'm British.

Yeah, sure you are.

Shure I am.

You?

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.

Not at all, old boy. Karnal's the Australian. You flew here, remember?

I have assimilated. You are still 'British' and praise allah, shifty Paki bugger.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 40516
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #228 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 8:41am

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:27pm:

The old boy is the perpetual Jizzya. He flew here, refuses to assimilate.

Lucky we're a multicultural bunch, no?

You paki arsebandits are. Don't pretend to speak for the sane and honourable and decent people.

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.

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92275
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #229 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 10:16am

Frank wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 8:29am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 12:08am:

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2018 at 10:27pm:

The old boy is the perpetual Jizzya. He flew here, refuses to assimilate.

Lucky we're a multicultural bunch, no?

You paki arsebandits are. Don't pretend to speak for the sane and honourable and decent people.

Sorry, old boy, I'm British.

Yeah, sure you are.

Shure I am.

You?

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.

Not at all, old boy. Karnal's the Australian. You flew here, remember?

I have assimilated. You are still 'British' and praise allah, shifty Paki bugger.

You're a Nazi. FD wants to ask your type questions at the airport.

Are you, or have you ever been tinted?

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20955
A cat with a view

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #230 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 11:30am

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

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.

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 12:10am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

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.

You flew here too, Y, remember? You came here on a broom.

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 ?

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #231 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 1:06pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 2:24pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2018 at 1:14pm:

The arguments I actually made are not mutually exclusive.

Thats debatable. On the one hand you said this:

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

I think they had a duty of care to humanity and fellow Jews stop Muhammed and it was unfortunate they failed. And Muhammed's beligerant and antogonistic racism

O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent - you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.

would still be beligerant and antagonistic racism, and would justify the hostility of the Jews to him.

- 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.

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

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #232 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 1:29pm

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

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.

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?

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

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 40516
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #233 - Sep 25^th, 2018 at 6:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 1:29pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

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.

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?

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #234 - Sep 28^th, 2018 at 7:25pm

Quote:

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.

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:

I refer you then to the 'duty of care to humanity' quote above. This suggests

In that case I refer you to what the quote actually says.

Quote:

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?

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?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Mattyfisk Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 92275 Gender:	Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression? Reply #235 - Sep 28^th, 2018 at 11:29pm Do you have a multiple choice, FD?
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #236 - Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:43pm

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

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.

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:

Scholars have tried to explain the puzzling absence of the three Jewish tribes. Wellhausen proposed that the Nadīr, Qurayza, and Qaynuqā were in fact the Jewish groups in the document, but that they appeared under other names and in subordinate positions to Arab tribes because by this point they had lost much of their independence and power. More recent scholars give little credence to this claim. Watt explained the absence of the three tribes as indicating that the document was redacted in the form preserved in the
Sīra only a󰀀er the elimination of the Qurayza in 927. Rubin con-tends that the document was intended to estab-lish a Medinian unity based on locality (not ancient kinship laws). e major Jewish groups had their own territories outside the main Arab districts. Others maintain that Muham-mad had separate nonbelligerency treaties with the three tribes and so had no need to include them here.

https://www.academia.edu/14615939/_Banu_l-Nadir_Banu_Qaynuqa_Banu_Qurayza_and_Co...

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

You lied about the treaty.

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.

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: 47364
At my desk.

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #237 - Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:02am

Quote:

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).

How many versions of the constitution are there? One for every act of genocide committed by Muhammad?

Quote:

Historians have variously argued that the Qurayza were either in an earlier version

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:

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.

Are you willing to claim that Lewis is the only historian to hold this view?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #238 - Oct 9^th, 2018 at 11:44am

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:02am:

So you use the constitution to justify Muhammad's genocide, but can only speculate on the existence of a constitution they were party to?

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 6^th, 2018 at 7:02am:

Are you willing to claim that Lewis is the only historian to hold this view?

unbelievable.

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: 47364
At my desk.

Re: Dhimmitude is against oppression?
Reply #239 - Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:08pm

Quote:

I've cited the opinions of actual historians who think so FD.

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:

unbelievable.

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?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged