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 ... 16
Send Topic Print
Salman Rushdie Attacked (Read 8478 times)
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 10430
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #150 - Aug 30th, 2022 at 9:56pm
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 6:23pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 29th, 2022 at 2:07pm:
The only thing I came here to dispute was Baron's absurd line (that he's been repeating over and over as one of his favourite 'go-to' arguments against Islam for the last decade and more) - that Islamic doctrine itself - specifically verse 5-32 - is not applicable to muslims because it refers to "bani Israel". Or in other words, that muslims themselves don't believe that many of the Quranic commands - including some emanating from their own prophets - apply to them.

You would presumably agree with me when you say things like "What Muslims believe after Mohammed is precisely what makes them Mohammedan."


If 5/32 means what apologists and muslims claim it means why do they always leave out the first bit mentioning children of Israel?


I already explained that to you, are you blind? (....yes).  eternal 'Allah' was eternal 'Jehovah' to Jews  in the OT days.  Muhammud merely  revealed the final revelation of God, in the Koran (according to the Koran).  Nothing 'apologetic' about that.

5,32 is merely restating (in the 7th century) Allah/Jehovah's  "thou shalt not kill'  commandment, for all men including Muslims, as Jehovah/Allah did for bronze age Jews (while authorizing genocide at the same time....) 

Quote:
If 5/32 applied to muslims then surely the moderates would be able to silence the fundamentalists who do Jihad (Islamic terror) by quoting that verse yet for some reason this doesn't happen.  Roll Eyes


Read 5,32 again - it contains an "except for murderers and those spreading corruption" ie infidels" clause...... 

Quote:
If 5/32 applies to muslims why did Qadri need 600 pages for his fatwa to outlaw Islamic terror surely he could have just quoted 5/32 which he didn't. Roll Eyes


Addressed above: 5,32 refered to those who the commandment/decree  doesn't apply.

Quote:
Because of that,We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul (ie to save a soul, in the Spanish Inquisition manner of saving a soul....)  or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
https://legacy.quran.com/5/32

As we can see with Muhsin Khans translation here children of Israel = Jews. Bit in brackets doesn't appear in Quran
.

Muhammud, as God's last prophet,  is merely recognizing the Jews were favoured by God/Allah; as Muslims are favoured by God's final revelation in the Koran. 

Quote:
O Children of Israel, remember My favor that I have bestowed upon you and that I preferred you over the worlds.


Correct, and addressed above.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 30th, 2022 at 10:04pm by thegreatdivide »  
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #151 - Sep 2nd, 2022 at 2:05pm
 
Frank wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 9:30pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 2:31pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 1:28pm:
Had it existed before there would have been no point to Mo. Muslims follow the Koran and Mohammed's example and teachings. There could have been no Muslim, by definition, without the Koran that was revealed to Mo AND NOT BEFORE.


Are you even listening to yourself? You are saying that thousands of years of prophethood and revelation before the Quran is meaningless to muslims. We know this is bunkum because the Quran itself explains their importance.

For muslims, the Quran is merely the final revelation - the perfection of the previous revelations of the Torah and the gospel. You do understand that the Quran specifically identifies the Torah and gospel (by name) - as divine in origin right?

Externally, looking at Islam today from the outside, of course it is seen as meaningless without Muhammad. And that is perfectly understandable. But for musims themselves - as taught in Islamic doctrine - pre-Muhammad Abrahamic tradition is absolutely integral to the religion - and in fact meaningless without it.


You are willing to question everything - but Islam, Koran, Mohammed.


There is no stepping outside it for you because you know that the moment you step outside it all, it collapses as a superstitious, jumbled heap of nonsense.

So you INSIST on seeing the world and talking about it as it appears to unquestioning Muslims. This is the trap Mohammed set for you and from which there is no escape for you. It all hinges on him and his revelation. There is NO way for you to be a Muslim without Mohammed. "Muslims" without Mohammed are infidels, apostates, people of the Book - but not Muslims.

Muslims are incapable of seeing themselves AS THEY APPEAR from a different perspective without resorting to murdering people who point out that appearance. Murdering in the 21st century for a 7th century idea is a a sure sign of primitive psychosis. And there an awful lot of that among those inflicted with Islam.

There is simply NO critical vantage point for Muslims from which to view Islam. Muhammed f**ked you up that way, good and proper.



And here we reach the point where Frank ignores or forgets what we were actually debating, and goes into full rant mode.

Its an inevitable stage of a debate that anyone who debates Frank will reach.
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: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #152 - Sep 2nd, 2022 at 2:12pm
 
Baron, you lost the debate when you tried to equate 'bani Israel' and "yuhudy" as the same people.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 6:23pm:
why did Qadri need 600 pages


FMD. I forgot this "argument" of yours. Thanks for reminding me. I really needed a good eye roll.
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: 39937
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #153 - Sep 2nd, 2022 at 3:02pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 2:31pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 30th, 2022 at 1:28pm:
Had it existed before there would have been no point to Mo. Muslims follow the Koran and Mohammed's example and teachings. There could have been no Muslim, by definition, without the Koran that was revealed to Mo AND NOT BEFORE.


Are you even listening to yourself? You are saying that thousands of years of prophethood and revelation before the Quran is meaningless to muslims. We know this is bunkum because the Quran itself explains their importance.

For muslims, the Quran is merely the final revelation - the perfection of the previous revelations of the Torah and the gospel. You do understand that the Quran specifically identifies the Torah and gospel (by name) - as divine in origin right?

Externally, looking at Islam today from the outside, of course it is seen as meaningless without Muhammad. And that is perfectly understandable. But for musims themselves - as taught in Islamic doctrine - pre-Muhammad Abrahamic tradition is absolutely integral to the religion - and in fact meaningless without it.



The point is that the thousands of years of prophethood and revelation came into view for Muslims ONLY because of Mohammed.

Unlike with Christianity, which was FIRST a Jewish sect, building on prophets and revelations, not discovering them for the first time, like Muslims suddenly discovered Islam, an invention by Mohammed.
If I am not mistaken he even tried to 'sell it' to the Jews of Araby first and got incensed only when they laughed at him.


The Arabs converted from their pagan religions to Islam first for military and political reasons. Christians and Jews only converted to Islam when they were conquered. By contrast, Christianity spread within the Roman Empire (ie most of the known world) without conquest or coercion. Quite the opposite, it spread first despite being proscribed.


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: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #154 - Sep 2nd, 2022 at 3:57pm
 
Even the (non-muslim) orientalists largely agree that the arabs were attracted to Islam because of the egalitarian message that challenged rigid class structures. c.f. Montgomery Watt.

Also, its a bit of a fallacy to describe the arabs at the time as belonging to a religion that was completely alien to Abrahamic monotheism. Generally they believed in the same God (Allah) as the Abrahamics - only they also ascribed partners to Him. Its said that one of the idols that Muhammad removed from the Kabaa was a statue of the virgin Mary. They also agreed with a core part of Islamic belief that the black stone at the Kabaa was revealed to Abraham.

While the history is sketchy, it does appear that the paganism of Mohammad's time was a relatively new innovation, that quite clearly branched off from the Abrahamic tradition. And before these polytheists, it appears that Judaism and christianity (in its various guises) dominated the region.

So your depiction of Muhammad preaching almost exclusively to people who had a religion completely alien to the Abrahamic tradition is clearly false. And then you add to that the not insignificant arab populations of jews and christians - many of whom converted.

Also, the fact that Muhammad adopted exactly the same prophets as the jews and christians.
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: 39937
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #155 - Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:31pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 2nd, 2022 at 3:57pm:
Even the (non-muslim) orientalists largely agree that the arabs were attracted to Islam because of the egalitarian message that challenged rigid class structures. c.f. Montgomery Watt.



When he started to win battles.....  Not before that.


Quote:
Also, its a bit of a fallacy to describe the arabs at the time as belonging to a religion that was completely alien to Abrahamic monotheism. Generally they believed in the same God (Allah) as the Abrahamics - only they also ascribed partners to Him. Its said that one of the idols that Muhammad removed from the Kabaa was a statue of the virgin Mary. They also agreed with a core part of Islamic belief that the black stone at the Kabaa was revealed to Abraham.

While the history is sketchy, it does appear that the paganism of Mohammad's time was a relatively new innovation, that quite clearly branched off from the Abrahamic tradition. And before these polytheists, it appears that Judaism and christianity (in its various guises) dominated the region.

So your depiction of Muhammad preaching almost exclusively to people who had a religion completely alien to the Abrahamic tradition is clearly false.



'Completely alien' is your formulation, not mine. The OT, insofar as it is history, mentions lots of people interacting with each other. Not even Egyptian religion was 'completely alien' to Judaism.

The move from polytheism to monotheism is as big a leap as the Copernican revolution. Monotheism was a uniquely Jewish belief, and it got them into trouble with the Romans, the Egyptians and everyone they came into contact with. So Mohammed was the first Arab polytheist who picked up o that and went on to invent Islam. SO Islam started with him.
He and other Muslims then revised their pre-history to explain their innovation as eternal and unchanging. That is a crucial Mohammedan invention from which there is no escape - Mohammed cannot be revised


Quote:
And then you add to that the not insignificant arab populations of jews and christians - many of whom converted.

Also, the fact that Muhammad adopted exactly the same prophets as the jews and christians.



Jews and Christians converted to Islam only when conquered. There were no Islamic pockets in unconquered Byzantine territories or in the unconquered East.

The same prophets - up to a point Lord Copper, up to a point. Mohammed revised them to suit his own invention. And those revisions were often crude and evidently misunderstanding. Unsurprising since he was not what you call a 'reader'. No wonder the Jews laughed at him and no wonder he got really pissed off about that - retaining a reverence for Books as only a Jew-at-heart or an illiterate can.




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: 47058
At my desk.
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #156 - Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:38pm
 
Quote:
Even the (non-muslim) orientalists largely agree that the arabs were attracted to Islam because of the egalitarian message that challenged rigid class structures. c.f. Montgomery Watt.


There were tribes, not classes.
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: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #157 - Sep 29th, 2022 at 3:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:38pm:
Quote:
Even the (non-muslim) orientalists largely agree that the arabs were attracted to Islam because of the egalitarian message that challenged rigid class structures. c.f. Montgomery Watt.


There were tribes, not classes.


No FD. Muhammad was from the same tribe as the people who were later his enemy. Many members of the dominant Quraysh tribe joined Muhammad. Why? Because social inequality existed within it. Economic stratification existed within tribes - not (just) between tribes.
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: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #158 - Sep 29th, 2022 at 4:00pm
 
Frank wrote on Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:31pm:
'Completely alien' is your formulation, not mine. The OT, insofar as it is history, mentions lots of people interacting with each other. Not even Egyptian religion was 'completely alien' to Judaism.

The move from polytheism to monotheism is as big a leap as the Copernican revolution. Monotheism was a uniquely Jewish belief, and it got them into trouble with the Romans, the Egyptians and everyone they came into contact with. So Mohammed was the first Arab polytheist who picked up o that and went on to invent Islam. SO Islam started with him.
He and other Muslims then revised their pre-history to explain their innovation as eternal and unchanging. That is a crucial Mohammedan invention from which there is no escape - Mohammed cannot be revised


As I've already hinted, the polytheists of 7th century Arabia were a special case. They had branched off from the jewish/christian tradition that had likely had a far longer history in the region than them. It was nothing like the Greek and Roman experiences - who had never been influenced by any monotheistic tradition. From your point of view, these arab polytheists already worshipped Muhammad's Allah, and even performed the same rituals that Muhammad adopted (haj and ritual prayer). They were the low hanging fruit that Muhammad had the most success in converting.

I view the arabian versions of judaism (important to note it was different to original judaism), christianity and polytheism as all being on the same spectrum.

Or, in short, I don't consider the move from 7th century Arab paganism to Abrahamic monotheism (ie Islam) as a "Copernican leap".
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: 47058
At my desk.
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #159 - Sep 29th, 2022 at 8:49pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 3:44pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:38pm:
Quote:
Even the (non-muslim) orientalists largely agree that the arabs were attracted to Islam because of the egalitarian message that challenged rigid class structures. c.f. Montgomery Watt.


There were tribes, not classes.


No FD. Muhammad was from the same tribe as the people who were later his enemy. Many members of the dominant Quraysh tribe joined Muhammad. Why? Because social inequality existed within it. Economic stratification existed within tribes - not (just) between tribes.


What sort of economic stratification? Rich and poor people?

Quote:
They had branched off from the jewish/christian tradition that had likely had a far longer history in the region than them.


Christianity had not existed for very long.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 10430
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #160 - Sep 29th, 2022 at 9:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 8:49pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 3:44pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:38pm:
Quote:
Even the (non-muslim) orientalists largely agree that the arabs were attracted to Islam because of the egalitarian message that challenged rigid class structures. c.f. Montgomery Watt.


There were tribes, not classes.


No FD. Muhammad was from the same tribe as the people who were later his enemy. Many members of the dominant Quraysh tribe joined Muhammad. Why? Because social inequality existed within it. Economic stratification existed within tribes - not (just) between tribes.


What sort of economic stratification? Rich and poor people?


Merchants/traders  cf animal herders.

Quote:
Christianity had not existed for very long.


Six centuries.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 39937
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #161 - Sep 29th, 2022 at 10:45pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 4:00pm:
Frank wrote on Sep 2nd, 2022 at 5:31pm:
'Completely alien' is your formulation, not mine. The OT, insofar as it is history, mentions lots of people interacting with each other. Not even Egyptian religion was 'completely alien' to Judaism.

The move from polytheism to monotheism is as big a leap as the Copernican revolution. Monotheism was a uniquely Jewish belief, and it got them into trouble with the Romans, the Egyptians and everyone they came into contact with. So Mohammed was the first Arab polytheist who picked up o that and went on to invent Islam. SO Islam started with him.
He and other Muslims then revised their pre-history to explain their innovation as eternal and unchanging. That is a crucial Mohammedan invention from which there is no escape - Mohammed cannot be revised


As I've already hinted, the polytheists of 7th century Arabia were a special case. They had branched off from the jewish/christian tradition that had likely had a far longer history in the region than them. It was nothing like the Greek and Roman experiences - who had never been influenced by any monotheistic tradition. From your point of view, these arab polytheists already worshipped Muhammad's Allah, and even performed the same rituals that Muhammad adopted (haj and ritual prayer). They were the low hanging fruit that Muhammad had the most success in converting.

I view the arabian versions of judaism (important to note it was different to original judaism), christianity and polytheism as all being on the same spectrum.

Or, in short, I don't consider the move from 7th century Arab paganism to Abrahamic monotheism (ie Islam) as a "Copernican leap".

And neither Christianity nor Mohammedanism moved to monotheism completely. Christianity is a Greek imitation of it, Mohammedanism an Arab one.

The Greeks at the time were infinitely brainier and more cultivated than the Mohammedan Arabs so they made a far more imaginative and artful attempt than the Arabs, who to this day are mired in literalism that locks them into primitive mental shackles.
That is why Christianity - and Judaism - are infinitely more agile and adaptable than Islam. Islam, because of its primitive literalism is unreformable.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2022 at 9:44am by Frank »  

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: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #162 - Sep 30th, 2022 at 9:22am
 
Frank wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 10:45pm:
the Arabs, who to this day are mired in literalism that locks them into primitive mental shackles.


On that at least I agree.
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: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #163 - Sep 30th, 2022 at 9:41am
 
freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 8:49pm:
Christianity had not existed for very long.


But almost certainly longer than the hotchpotch patchwork of polytheistic religions that existed at the time of Muhammad.

There pretty much isn't any religious ritual/tradition of those pagans that we know of that wasn't directly lifted from the Judeo-Christian tradition: belief in Adam as the first human, the flood, Abraham and the story of Hagar - and of course belief in Allah as the creator of the universe.

The Quran perhaps gives us the best clues to who these "pagans" were. They are specifically recognised as believers in the one God - but commit the cardinal sin of ascribing associates to Him. The Quranic word for these polytheists - "mushrikeen" comes from the root word 'shirik' which is the act of ascribing associates with God.  And really, it applies just as equally to people who believe God has a son or those who believe that Muhammad himself can intercede on behalf of muslims on judgement day, or that the book of hadiths can overrule the book of 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
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10296
Gender: male
Re: Salman Rushdie Attacked
Reply #164 - Sep 30th, 2022 at 9:45am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30th, 2022 at 9:41am:
freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2022 at 8:49pm:
Christianity had not existed for very long.


There pretty much isn't any religious ritual/tradition of those pagans that we know of that wasn't directly lifted from the Judeo-Christian tradition: belief in Adam as the first human, the flood, Abraham and the story of Hagar - and of course belief in Allah as the creator of the universe.

You need to study Zoroastrianism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16
Send Topic Print