5 ms·

But 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

by nailer 1y ago

But 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 ago
How 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 ago
  So 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 ago
    According 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
      > a minority of Jews will ally with the false Messiah and persecute people throughout the world and cause corruption finally, you’ve responded to the point. This isn’t in the text and is your own personal reading. But at least you’ve acknowledged it exists unlike previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351915 > I've already rebutted that No you haven’t rebutted either example of me pointing out your 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 you just wrote 'no u' - that's 'tu quoque', another logical fallacy. If it’s unclear, I am not stating Islam is only violent because the text is violent. I think you might be trying to refute a point I’m not making. There were many reasons why Islam is violent. What do you think causes Islamic violence? > I am not going to let you snake around. I can see the slithering. > Is that why you slid away from the other thread to this one You insult people like a medieval wizard. Did I forget to read one of your posts on the other thread? I’m sorry, I clearly missed out. I’m on this thread reminding you of a second instance of you using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Here is a link to refresh your memory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44372664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44372664
      - handfuloflight 1y ago
        Let me start with a basic logic lesson: You're committing what's called the "composition fallacy." That's when you take one small part of something and pretend it describes the whole thing. Like saying "this car has a red door, therefore the entire car is red." You're taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent." That's not how logic works. Since you claim my interpretation about a 'minority of Jews' is "personal reading not found in the text," let me provide you with the actual scholarship you're apparently incapable of conducting yourself: The Prophet (ṣ) said: "The Dajjal (false Messiah) would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls" (Sahih Muslim 2944): this is the exact hadith text, not my "personal reading." Seventy thousand Jews from one city constitutes what exactly, if not a minority of world Jewry? You think you can analyze Islamic eschatology based on one isolated hadith while remaining completely ignorant of the broader literature. The Prophet (ṣ) said: 'The Dajjal will appear at the end of time when religion is taken lightly' (Sunan Ibn Majah 4067); meaning everything about about the Dajjal and his followers is explicitly END-TIMES prophecy, not prescriptive commands for daily Muslim behavior. Not my 'personal reading', this is only basic Islamic eschatology. The same Prophet (ṣ) said: "Nothing between the creation of Adam until the establishment of the Hour is a greater tribulation than the affair of the False Messiah" (Sahih Muslim 2946); meaning his followers, including these Jews, are portrayed as bringing the ultimate tribulation and persecution to humanity, not being victims themselves. The hadith literature is explicit about the Dajjal's persecution. The Prophet (ṣ) said: "Verily, preceding the False Messiah will be years of deception, in which the truthful are belied, the liars are believed, the trustworthy are discredited, the treacherous are trusted, and the disgraceful speak" (Musnad Ahmad 13298). He also said: "The people will flee from the False Messiah into the mountains" (Sahih Muslim 2945), describing Muslims fleeing persecution, not initiating it. You desperately claim victory because I acknowledged a hadith exists: something I never denied. You think that the acknowledgement of a hadith is akin to acknowledgement of your faulty interpretation. How stupid, Mr. Non Sequitor! Your sophisticated theological analysis amounts to: 'I found one hadith mentioning future conflict, therefore Islam is violent'; while remaining completely ignorant of the context, the broader literature, and the specific circumstances described. This is like reading one sentence from Revelation about Armageddon and declaring Christianity inherently violent. Now you are moving your goalposts with your retreat to 'there are many reasons Islam is violent' without specifying any. When challenged on logical fallacies, you ignore the rebuttals. When asked about contradictory historical evidence (link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839), you promise a flailing disengagement which you are unable to adhere because of how thoroughly emotionally rattled you are by having your ignorant bigotry challenged. Is this really the intellectual standard you want to defend? Because at this point, watching you flail around these basic logical contradictions is starting to feel less like a debate and more like intellectual charity work. Better to insult like a medieval wizard than think like a modern idiot. Keep it up, I am truly enjoying this and want to see how inexhaustible is your faulty thinking and how much contradictory emotional fuel is behind your promise to stop speaking to me. Seems like it's not just Islam that lives rent free in your head, but now this Muslim is too.

by nailer 1y ago

handfuloflight 1y ago

How 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 ago
So 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 ago
  According 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
    > a minority of Jews will ally with the false Messiah and persecute people throughout the world and cause corruption finally, you’ve responded to the point. This isn’t in the text and is your own personal reading. But at least you’ve acknowledged it exists unlike previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351915 > I've already rebutted that No you haven’t rebutted either example of me pointing out your 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 you just wrote 'no u' - that's 'tu quoque', another logical fallacy. If it’s unclear, I am not stating Islam is only violent because the text is violent. I think you might be trying to refute a point I’m not making. There were many reasons why Islam is violent. What do you think causes Islamic violence? > I am not going to let you snake around. I can see the slithering. > Is that why you slid away from the other thread to this one You insult people like a medieval wizard. Did I forget to read one of your posts on the other thread? I’m sorry, I clearly missed out. I’m on this thread reminding you of a second instance of you using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Here is a link to refresh your memory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44372664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44372664
    - handfuloflight 1y ago
      Let me start with a basic logic lesson: You're committing what's called the "composition fallacy." That's when you take one small part of something and pretend it describes the whole thing. Like saying "this car has a red door, therefore the entire car is red." You're taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent." That's not how logic works. Since you claim my interpretation about a 'minority of Jews' is "personal reading not found in the text," let me provide you with the actual scholarship you're apparently incapable of conducting yourself: The Prophet (ṣ) said: "The Dajjal (false Messiah) would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls" (Sahih Muslim 2944): this is the exact hadith text, not my "personal reading." Seventy thousand Jews from one city constitutes what exactly, if not a minority of world Jewry? You think you can analyze Islamic eschatology based on one isolated hadith while remaining completely ignorant of the broader literature. The Prophet (ṣ) said: 'The Dajjal will appear at the end of time when religion is taken lightly' (Sunan Ibn Majah 4067); meaning everything about about the Dajjal and his followers is explicitly END-TIMES prophecy, not prescriptive commands for daily Muslim behavior. Not my 'personal reading', this is only basic Islamic eschatology. The same Prophet (ṣ) said: "Nothing between the creation of Adam until the establishment of the Hour is a greater tribulation than the affair of the False Messiah" (Sahih Muslim 2946); meaning his followers, including these Jews, are portrayed as bringing the ultimate tribulation and persecution to humanity, not being victims themselves. The hadith literature is explicit about the Dajjal's persecution. The Prophet (ṣ) said: "Verily, preceding the False Messiah will be years of deception, in which the truthful are belied, the liars are believed, the trustworthy are discredited, the treacherous are trusted, and the disgraceful speak" (Musnad Ahmad 13298). He also said: "The people will flee from the False Messiah into the mountains" (Sahih Muslim 2945), describing Muslims fleeing persecution, not initiating it. You desperately claim victory because I acknowledged a hadith exists: something I never denied. You think that the acknowledgement of a hadith is akin to acknowledgement of your faulty interpretation. How stupid, Mr. Non Sequitor! Your sophisticated theological analysis amounts to: 'I found one hadith mentioning future conflict, therefore Islam is violent'; while remaining completely ignorant of the context, the broader literature, and the specific circumstances described. This is like reading one sentence from Revelation about Armageddon and declaring Christianity inherently violent. Now you are moving your goalposts with your retreat to 'there are many reasons Islam is violent' without specifying any. When challenged on logical fallacies, you ignore the rebuttals. When asked about contradictory historical evidence (link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839), you promise a flailing disengagement which you are unable to adhere because of how thoroughly emotionally rattled you are by having your ignorant bigotry challenged. Is this really the intellectual standard you want to defend? Because at this point, watching you flail around these basic logical contradictions is starting to feel less like a debate and more like intellectual charity work. Better to insult like a medieval wizard than think like a modern idiot. Keep it up, I am truly enjoying this and want to see how inexhaustible is your faulty thinking and how much contradictory emotional fuel is behind your promise to stop speaking to me. Seems like it's not just Islam that lives rent free in your head, but now this Muslim is too.