Australian Politics Forum - The treaty of Medina

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98425

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #30 - Nov 29^th, 2018 at 4:09pm

Ah yes, but FD never goes down the evidence route, G, he prefers porkies. You have given FD the chance to correct any mistakes he may have made in his use of a plural, but he has declined to do this. Nor did he recant his false claim and use the singular, so he clearly intended to tell a porkie and he continues to do so.

In the same breath, FD has accused you of telling porkies, and claims that this is the Islamic fashion. However, you have exposed this as FD's method of debate. Rather than going to the trouble of doing any research, FD just makes it up. He then plays the victim when confronted with this.

Now some of us believe In freedom - real freedom, not the faux version FD upholds in his campaign against the Muselman. You advocate freedom as a Muslim, using passages from the Quran to show that freedom of belief is crucial. I'm not sure that I've ever seen FD advocate such a position. If anything, FD appears to argue that one should not be free to be a Muslim, or if you are, you should have your liberties curtailed.

FD certainly argues that foreign Muslims should answer Muslim-specific questions in order to be let into Australia. Given his rhetorical use of plurals to describe singulars, mindless collectives to describe individuals and truths to describe porkies, it is clear what FD expects from such a program - he clearly wants to see Muslims banned through the use of porkies too.

This is what we can expect in the campaign against the Muselman. For some reason, the campaign's advocates abandon the use of truth, along with freedom, decency and manners. The campaign against the Muselman is not just a narrow set of ideas, it's an entire mindset - lies, intolerance and bitterness. These are the values held, while all the while, a completely different set of values is espoused.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #31 - Nov 29^th, 2018 at 7:22pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

Gandalf, providing an example to back up what you say is not lying.

oh wow another lie. I guess thats telling a lie as a way of explaining how you're not lying Cheesy

Or is it really possible that you don't comprehend that citing the quote "Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad" is not 'providing an example to back up' the claim "some historians conclude it was merely a unilateral declaration by Muhammad"??

No, I don't believe it is. I'll just go with 'FD just told another fib - to try and justify his other fib'.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

You also claimed, after much prodding, that no other historian in the world agrees with the statement.

What did I say exactly FD? There is no evidence that we have seen to suggest that, that is the point. That you state is as fact, without having any evidence, while clearly not knowing of any such evidence is what the lie is FD. You desperately clinging on to some imaginary but utterly baseless possibility that maybe someone else might have said it - isn't your get out of gaol free card that somehow magically makes it not a lie. In any case, at this stage you actually seem to be opting for my option 1 (see earlier post) - and arguing that providing a citation that says something completely different to what you are claiming is not only not dishonest, but incredibly, is somehow actually legitimate evidence for your claim. I really don't know if you are just so in deep with your lying that you can't bear to extract yourself out of it, or if you are really that clueless. Either way, its yet another masterclass in FD unfathomableness.

So you are backpedaling?

Do you disagree with my statement or not Gandalf? It would look a bit silly if you you posted pages of hysterics about it, then it turned out you were not even prepared to disagree with it, don't you think?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98425	Re: The treaty of Medina Reply #32 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 12:10am No no, FD, kindly answer this: do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman? Why or why not?
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #33 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:04am

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 7:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

Gandalf, providing an example to back up what you say is not lying.

oh wow another lie. I guess thats telling a lie as a way of explaining how you're not lying Cheesy

Or is it really possible that you don't comprehend that citing the quote "Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad" is not 'providing an example to back up' the claim "some historians conclude it was merely a unilateral declaration by Muhammad"??

No, I don't believe it is. I'll just go with 'FD just told another fib - to try and justify his other fib'.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

You also claimed, after much prodding, that no other historian in the world agrees with the statement.

What did I say exactly FD? There is no evidence that we have seen to suggest that, that is the point. That you state is as fact, without having any evidence, while clearly not knowing of any such evidence is what the lie is FD. You desperately clinging on to some imaginary but utterly baseless possibility that maybe someone else might have said it - isn't your get out of gaol free card that somehow magically makes it not a lie. In any case, at this stage you actually seem to be opting for my option 1 (see earlier post) - and arguing that providing a citation that says something completely different to what you are claiming is not only not dishonest, but incredibly, is somehow actually legitimate evidence for your claim. I really don't know if you are just so in deep with your lying that you can't bear to extract yourself out of it, or if you are really that clueless. Either way, its yet another masterclass in FD unfathomableness.

So you are backpedaling?

Do you disagree with my statement or not Gandalf? It would look a bit silly if you you posted pages of hysterics about it, then it turned out you were not even prepared to disagree with it, don't you think?

Yes I disagree FD. How could I possibly agree with it? Call me quaint, but I prefer to see some evidence for a claim before I agree with it. And yes, obviously before that is provided the default always must be that I disagree with it. Academics 101.

Do you agree that the citation:
Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad

is not evidence for the claim:
some historians conclude it was merely a unilateral declaration by Muhammad"?

yes or no?

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: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #34 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 1:15pm

Quote:

Yes I disagree FD. How could I possibly agree with it? Call me quaint, but I prefer to see some evidence for a claim before I agree with it.

What about before you disagree with it? Or is it OK to take a contrary stance, no matter how ludicrous, without any supporting evidence?

Is this some special Islamic logic you are applying here, or is it your personal confusion?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #35 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 2:17pm

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

What about before you disagree with it? Or is it OK to take a contrary stance, no matter how ludicrous, without any supporting evidence?

That makes no sense, and I don't even know what you are trying to say. I doubt you do either. Much like most of the waffle you produce these days. I suspect you were just looking for some pretext to hurl your favourite insult "some special Islamic logic"

Do you agree that the citation:
Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad

is not evidence for the claim:
some historians conclude it was merely a unilateral declaration by Muhammad"?

yes or no?

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

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98425	Re: The treaty of Medina Reply #36 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 4:49pm And I'll take G's supplementary if that's alright, FD. Do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman? Yes or no?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #37 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 7:19pm

Quote:

That makes no sense, and I don't even know what you are trying to say.

You claim you would not agree with my claim without seeing evidence first (which you actually have seen). But you are happy to disagree with it in the absence of any evidence to support your contrary position, despite how idiotic the corner is that you have painted yourself into.

Do all Muslims lie as easily as you do, then insist it is not a lie if you are disagreeing with someone in the process?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #38 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:32pm

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 7:19pm:

(which you actually have seen)

nope.

lets try third time lucky eh...

Do you agree that the citation:

Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad

is not evidence for the claim:

some historians conclude it was merely a unilateral declaration by Muhammad"?

yes or no?

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: 50566 At my desk.	Re: The treaty of Medina Reply #39 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm It is evidence Gandalf. Were you lying when you said Lewis was the only historian on earth to hold that view? Do all Muslims just make up lies about Islam when it is convenient, no matter how obvious it is they are lying?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: The treaty of Medina Reply #40 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:37pm freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm: It is evidence Gandalf. You're going to have to explain that to me
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: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #41 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:37pm

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:

Were you lying when you said Lewis was the only historian on earth to hold that view?

As far as I know he is. You certainly haven't provided any evidence to suggest otherwise.

You of course miss the point. You obviously don't know of any other historian saying it (otherwise you would have provided evidence) - yet you blithely state it as fact. And then somehow think that providing a citation of one historian saying it is the evidence you need. Go figure. FD logic at its finest.

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: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #42 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:

It is evidence Gandalf.

You're going to have to explain that to me

I think it would be better if you thought about it yourself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:

Were you lying when you said Lewis was the only historian on earth to hold that view?

Quote me.

Why? Are you backpedaling?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #43 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:43pm

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:

It is evidence Gandalf.

You're going to have to explain that to me

I think it would be better if you thought about it yourself.

I have. And citing a single historian saying one thing is not evidence for the claim that multiple historians said that same thing.

There, wasn't hard was 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: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The treaty of Medina
Reply #44 - Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:45pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:43pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:

It is evidence Gandalf.

You're going to have to explain that to me

I think it would be better if you thought about it yourself.

I have. And citing a single historian saying one thing is not evidence for the claim that multiple historians said that same thing.

There, wasn't hard was it?

You are wrong.

Is English your second language?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged