Australian Politics Forum - al-Aqsa Mosque

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52881
At my desk.

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #195 - Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:16pm

Quote:

You have a predictable way of deflecting from your ignorance of the existence and the effect of perceived religious truth via religious tradition.

We are talking about the Al Aqsa mosque. It's called staying on topic.

You still haven't explained where you think I disagreed with your statement about people being capable of believing...

When I point out the absurdity of the longwinded and obscure version - religious tradition determines what religious tradition is, and fact and truth emerge by some kind of fiat from the circular reasoning - is that the same as disagreeing with the clear, bleeding obvious version? Or is there some other kind of point you are trying to make?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16831
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #196 - Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:26pm

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:16pm:

Quote:

You have a predictable way of deflecting from your ignorance of the existence and the effect of perceived religious truth via religious tradition.

We are talking about the Al Aqsa mosque. It's called staying on topic.

You still haven't explained where you think I disagreed with your statement about people being capable of believing...

When I point out the absurdity of the longwinded and obscure version - religious tradition determines what religious tradition is, and fact and truth emerge by some kind of fiat from the circular reasoning - is that the same as disagreeing with the clear, bleeding obvious version? Or is there some other kind of point you are trying to make?

I said religious tradition usually trumps historical fact particularly where fact contradicts the transmission of a greater religious truth.

The expansion of Mohammad’s influence and reach to include, for religious reasons, the Temple Mount clearly has come about via religious tradition not via any direct historical fact.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57904
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #197 - Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:48pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 2:00pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 12:56pm:

Quote:

It is a response to your denying the bleeding obvious via pages of posts.

Can you quote me?

Do you think that "religious tradition determines what religious tradition is" or however you were trying to put it previously, is a clear way of stating that people are capable of believing the things that they believe?

Quote:

It does not matter to Islamic religious tradition if Muhammad gave the GPS coordinates of Al Aqsa or not.

Nothing matters to Islamic religious tradition. It is a vague human construct for you to project whatever you want onto, not a person with an opinion about what matters.

Religious tradition determines what (religious) truth is.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism… is the same in that regard.

EVIDENTLY not the same.

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: 52881
At my desk.

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #198 - Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:08pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:16pm:

Quote:

You have a predictable way of deflecting from your ignorance of the existence and the effect of perceived religious truth via religious tradition.

We are talking about the Al Aqsa mosque. It's called staying on topic.

You still haven't explained where you think I disagreed with your statement about people being capable of believing...

When I point out the absurdity of the longwinded and obscure version - religious tradition determines what religious tradition is, and fact and truth emerge by some kind of fiat from the circular reasoning - is that the same as disagreeing with the clear, bleeding obvious version? Or is there some other kind of point you are trying to make?

I said religious tradition usually trumps historical fact particularly where fact contradicts the transmission of a greater religious truth.

The expansion of Mohammad’s influence and reach to include, for religious reasons, the Temple Mount clearly has come about via religious tradition not via any direct historical fact.

So now you are agreeing with me, but insisting I disagree with you?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57904
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #199 - Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:21pm

Frank wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:48pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 2:00pm:

Religious tradition determines what (religious) truth is.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism… is the same in that regard.

EVIDENTLY not the same.

Islam was built as a rallying cry for Arab conquests. It spreads darkness, hatred, terrorism, discrimination, and impoverishment wherever it holds sway. It is, as Churchill put it back in the day, the most retrograde force in the world; even accounting, I would add, for the dreadful legacy of communism in the 20th century:

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. — The River War, 1899

If only St Augustine were still around. “They try to find ways to botch together their fables, but without success,” Augustine writes in City of God (Book IV, Ch. 10). He is talking about Roman gods. In this instance Jupiter and his wife Juno are in Augustine’s crosshairs. I thought how good it would have been if Augustine had been around to ridicule Islamic fables when they were being botched together.

...

Islam is a militant faith and the civilization of modern Europe might fall.

To reiterate, Islam can’t be wiped out. It can only be contained. It must be contained. America must totally win the Iranian war, no half measures, as part of that containment. No, Minister Wong, de-escalation is tantamount to giving the Islamofascist regime a green light. Paying higher petrol and diesel prices is a very small price to pay for victory.

On the homefront, on all Western homefronts, Islam must be confronted; not funded. Further Muslim immigration must be stopped; it is as simple as that. To see Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan dancing around the issue of values as an arbiter of immigration is a typical ploy by the wretched political class who have sold Australia down the river and are unserious about changing course. And have a look at the commentators on Sky News twisting themselves into knots.

Finally, can we have no more of this ‘moderate Muslim’ nonsense of which Pauline Hanson was rightfully impatient. It is entirely beside the point. Moderate today fundamentalist tomorrow. Who can tell? Women in miniskirts in Persia in the 1970s most definitely couldn’t. Ewe lambs to the slaughter.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/islam/got-muslims-got-problems/

Back to top

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

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16831
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #200 - Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:30pm

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:08pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:16pm:

Quote:

You have a predictable way of deflecting from your ignorance of the existence and the effect of perceived religious truth via religious tradition.

We are talking about the Al Aqsa mosque. It's called staying on topic.

You still haven't explained where you think I disagreed with your statement about people being capable of believing...

When I point out the absurdity of the longwinded and obscure version - religious tradition determines what religious tradition is, and fact and truth emerge by some kind of fiat from the circular reasoning - is that the same as disagreeing with the clear, bleeding obvious version? Or is there some other kind of point you are trying to make?

I said religious tradition usually trumps historical fact particularly where fact contradicts the transmission of a greater religious truth.

The expansion of Mohammad’s influence and reach to include, for religious reasons, the Temple Mount clearly has come about via religious tradition not via any direct historical fact.

So now you are agreeing with me, but insisting I disagree with you?

Its what I’ve always argued.

Where you spun off on a tangent was your ignorance of religious tradition vs historical fact.

Nearly all of ancient religions’ teachings particularly about chronologies, places and events come from oral traditions that founded religious tradition.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16831
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #201 - Apr 21^st, 2026 at 10:18am

Something glaring in Christian history regarding oral tradition is Paul's complete silence on the works of Jesus current at the time as oral tradition... even Josephus obliquely refers to them.

While these oral traditions, and their embellishments, ultimately became documented religious traditions, to Paul, it's likely that they were no more surprising than the claims made about multitudes of faith healers of the age... i.e. not enough to be more noteworthy than any other.

However, religious tradition has Jesus' miracles as the penultimate evidence of his exceptionality, second only to the resurrection... the latter of which Paul focuses on as the only exceptional fact of Jesus' earthly existence and the sole basis for his claim that life after death is a 'fact'.

For Christians, these oral-cum-religious traditions are now 'historical facts', requiring no further investigation.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57904
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #202 - Apr 22^nd, 2026 at 11:14am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:26pm:

I said religious tradition usually trumps historical fact particularly where fact contradicts the transmission of a greater religious truth.

The expansion of Mohammad’s influence and reach to include, for religious reasons, the Temple Mount clearly has come about via religious tradition not via any direct historical fact.

We Love Our Prophet

by Michael Copeland

Muslims proudly claim “We love our Prophet”. The Koran says he is “the beautiful pattern” to follow (33:21). He is Islam’s “Perfect man”. All Muslims know that they do well to imitate his actions. His scientific knowledge, they say, was ahead of his time. Even though he is dead, and not a deity, they address one of their daily prayers to him: “Peace be to you, O Mohammed”.

Islam’s traditions, the Hadith, record his deeds and sayings:

He said it was fine to drink water that had a dead animal in it. (Sunan Ibn Majah 520)

He instructed his followers to drink camel urine for its health benefits. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5686)

He received his best revelations, he explained, when wearing his wife’s dresses. (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2393)

He heard voices and thought he was becoming possessed. (Sahih al-Bukhari 4953)

He more than once went to commit suicide, but did not do so, saying an angel stopped him. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6982)

He married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9, as she herself recorded. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134)

He owned black slaves, and said Ethiopians had heads like raisins. (Sahih al-Bukhari 693)

On one occasion, he used two of his black slaves as payment for another slave. This is recorded as “selling animals for animals”. (Sahih Muslim 1602)

He told his followers the sun sets in a muddy pool in the far West. (Koran 18:86)

He liked to suck on little boys’ tongues. (Musnad Ahmad 16245)

He said women are deficient in intellect. (Sahih al-Bukhari 304)

He had 9 swords, one of which was a favourite called “Cleaver of Vertebrae”.

He said he travelled by night on a flying donkey to Jerusalem and back. Although his wife Aisha said he was beside her in bed all night. (Sahih Muslim 162a)

He promised a safe conduct to an enemy group if they gave up their weapons. When they did so, he had them all killed, saying war is deceit. (See The Massacre of the Banu Qurayzah) (Sahih al-Bukhari 3030)

Although he is referred to as the Prophet, he made very few prophecies.

He prophesied that a rock would speak, saying “There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2926)

He prophesied that Islam would split into 73 sects of which all but one would go to hell. (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2641)

He prophesied that Islam would lose support and return to its origins. As a snake slides back down its hole. (Sahih Muslim 146)

Muslims, of course, have to be careful never to criticise their prophet. To evolve Islam or his messenger? Brings the death penalty. (Manual of Islamic law — Reliance of the Traveller, o8.7(4)).

No, they assure everyone: “We love our Prophet”.

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: 52881
At my desk.

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #203 - Today at 12:11pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:08pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:16pm:

Quote:

You have a predictable way of deflecting from your ignorance of the existence and the effect of perceived religious truth via religious tradition.

We are talking about the Al Aqsa mosque. It's called staying on topic.

You still haven't explained where you think I disagreed with your statement about people being capable of believing...

When I point out the absurdity of the longwinded and obscure version - religious tradition determines what religious tradition is, and fact and truth emerge by some kind of fiat from the circular reasoning - is that the same as disagreeing with the clear, bleeding obvious version? Or is there some other kind of point you are trying to make?

I said religious tradition usually trumps historical fact particularly where fact contradicts the transmission of a greater religious truth.

The expansion of Mohammad’s influence and reach to include, for religious reasons, the Temple Mount clearly has come about via religious tradition not via any direct historical fact.

So now you are agreeing with me, but insisting I disagree with you?

Its what I’ve always argued.

Where you spun off on a tangent was your ignorance of religious tradition vs historical fact.

That is what I have been talking about for the whole thread. You have spent most of it pretending that historical fact does not even exist outside of what religious tradition says it is. Then you retreated to insisting the only point you are making is that people are capable of believing the things they believe.

So which is it Meister? Are you trying to make some other point, beyond the bleeding obvious? Or just finding ever more circuitous ways to say the same thing?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Today at 12:16pm by freediver »

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

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16831
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #204 - Today at 1:40pm

freediver wrote Today at 12:11pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 4:08pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2026 at 3:16pm:

Quote:

You have a predictable way of deflecting from your ignorance of the existence and the effect of perceived religious truth via religious tradition.

We are talking about the Al Aqsa mosque. It's called staying on topic.

You still haven't explained where you think I disagreed with your statement about people being capable of believing...

When I point out the absurdity of the longwinded and obscure version - religious tradition determines what religious tradition is, and fact and truth emerge by some kind of fiat from the circular reasoning - is that the same as disagreeing with the clear, bleeding obvious version? Or is there some other kind of point you are trying to make?

I said religious tradition usually trumps historical fact particularly where fact contradicts the transmission of a greater religious truth.

The expansion of Mohammad’s influence and reach to include, for religious reasons, the Temple Mount clearly has come about via religious tradition not via any direct historical fact.

So now you are agreeing with me, but insisting I disagree with you?

Its what I’ve always argued.

Where you spun off on a tangent was your ignorance of religious tradition vs historical fact.

That is what I have been talking about for the whole thread. You have spent most of it pretending that historical fact does not even exist outside of what religious tradition says it is. Then you retreated to insisting the only point you are making is that people are capable of believing the things they believe.

So which is it Meister? Are you trying to make some other point, beyond the bleeding obvious? Or just finding ever more circuitous ways to say the same thing?

I said that particularly with religion, tradition trumps historical fact…

You were arguing the opposite… which is not true in any religion let alone the location of al Aqsa.

Back to top

IP Logged