4 ms·
But I have named the doctrines. Remember when we discussed your beliefs about fighting Jews at the end of time and traitorous bushes? You got very angry about i
by nailer 1y ago
But I have named the doctrines. Remember when we discussed your beliefs about fighting Jews at the end of time and traitorous bushes? You got very angry about it. There are many more but you should probably acknowledge this one.
I didn’t need to do that. You say you’re an Islamic scholar so you should already be aware of this. I shouldn’t be needing to do research for you.
And you still haven’t defended my original accusation that you repeatedly stated that followers of Islamic violence are somehow un-Islamic - this is a textbook no true Scotsman.
> That's you implying that a Muslim who doesn't commit violence isn't following the "real" Islam
No it isn’t. Many Muslims do not commit violence although Islam itself states it is a violent belief system. Most Christians eat shellfish.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- handfuloflight 1y agoI am not going to let you snake around. I can see the slithering. You have not demonstrated how you have brought any evidence that Islam calls for unrestricted violence against Jews or any people.
- nailer 1y agoBut you do remember me mentioning your beliefs about fighting Jews at the end of time and traitorous bushes right? Here is a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351856 You specifically asked me to put up or shut up and I put up and then you got very angry about it. Surely you must remember?
- handfuloflight 1y agoHow does that demonstrate that Islam sanctions unrestricted violence against Jews? Are you aware of what the term "unrestricted violence" means? Do you think that Jews are able to behave without impunity, and if the Muslims have cause to retaliate against them, that means that Islam sanctions unrestricted violence against Jews?
- nailer 1y agoSo you do believe you will fight Jews at the end of time, but dispute that this is a call for unrestricted violence? Do you think it’s a call for… a more restricted violence? It is the end of time - I would assume your intentions are to really make it count. I believe anyone is allowed to behave as they reasonably want, including pointing out all the illness Islam has borne onto the world, for Muslims, for Jews, for Christians, for women, for journalists, for intellectuals and for everyone else. And you still haven’t responded to the original accusation of no true Scotsman.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- handfuloflight 1y agoAccording to the ahadith, a minority of Jews will ally with the false Messiah and persecute people throughout the world and cause corruption; and it will be this group that the Muslims will fight. Nothing about this calls for unrestricted violence. > And you still haven’t responded to the original accusation of no true Scotsman. I've already rebutted that, you only returned with an ipse dixit to say "no but actually Islam is really violent." What we're discussing here is towards deconstructing that point, so also rendering the claim of no true scotsman a moot point (doubly so). Because you will never be able to make the leap from "Islam allows for violence in limited cases, such as cases of persecution and self defense" to "Islam is violent," without bastardizing disengenuity. Also, you are quite the hypocrite aren't you? You repeatedly press me to respond to points (even after I responded to them), yet there is a multitude of points of mine that you left unaddressed, even stating that you're going to ignore them, giving me triple (clearly emotionally charged ragequitting) goodbyes, and then coming back to spew more garbage. Is that why you slid away from the other thread to this one, so people who do not catch that thread do not see your manifest impotencies?
- nailer 1y ago