4 ms·

> 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. Th

• 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.
  • nailer 1y ago
    > You're taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent." No. You asked for a hadith which was calling for violence as if you didn’t know that one existed and then were provided with one. > one isolated hadith Yes. You asked for one. I didn’t have to provide you with one but I gave you one anyway. You haven’t even thanked me yet. > something I never denied You called it a string of gobbledygook, even though it has since been realised that you know exactly what it was referring to. > Now you are moving your goalposts with your retreat to 'there are many reasons Islam is violent' without specifying any. There were no goal posts - I never limited the reasons that Islam is violent. In fact, I asked you to come up with your reasons why Islam is violent, and you have not provided any. > Umar ibn al-Khattab You really think this is contradictory historical evidence? If you’re wondering why I think he made Jewish people second class citizens rather than slaughtering them I’m presuming it’s because he liked money from overtaxation. Why do you think he made Jewish people second-class citizens, rather than slaughtering them? > Better to insult like a medieval wizard than think like a modern idiot. Really? Because you stopped communicating that way, which makes me feel that you’re a little bit self-conscious about it. And yes: two no true Scotsmans still undefended.
    • handfuloflight 1y ago
      So you continue to demonstrate the exact intellectual dishonesty I've been documenting across threads. You aren't responding to the fact that you're committing the composition fallacy: taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent." You never addressed this fundamental logical flaw in your argument because you know you can't defend it. You keep claiming I'm committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're misapplying it. When I said Iran's actions are "politics in religious clothing" rather than true Islamic doctrine, I wasn't redefining Islam to exclude counterexamples: I was making an evidential argument. I challenged OP to provide Islamic doctrinal support for Iran's positions and he didn't. I pointed to empirical evidence: the fact that 1.8 billion Muslims don't share Iran's position. I was distinguishing between political claims and religious doctrine based on evidence, not making arbitrary exclusions. The key difference is: No True Scotsman would be "Iran isn't really Islamic" (circular reasoning), but my argument was "Iran's actions aren't supported by Islamic doctrine" (evidential claim requiring proof). OP failed to provide the doctrinal evidence I requested, making this a substantive claim requiring evidence, not an arbitrary exclusion. Now, let's address your contradictory positions. In our previous thread, when I demanded citations, you wrote: "I understand you want me to cite specific hadiths, as I said earlier I think any Islamic scholar would already know which ones" and "You have no right to demand anything from me." Now you're acting wounded that I haven't "thanked" you for providing a hadith reference. If I "already know" these hadiths as you claimed, why would I thank you for telling me something I supposedly already knew? And why are you demanding gratitude for amateur citation while completely ignoring the multiple hadiths I provided with proper scholarly context? Quite clownish. Second, you're conflating citation with interpretation. You pointed to a hadith: congratulations, you can use Google! But when I provided you with proper context, multiple supporting hadiths, and explained the distinction between eschatological prophecy and prescriptive religious practice, you called it "gobbledygook" and fled the discussion. Citing a text isn't the same as defending an interpretation of it, which you've never done. Third, your claim that I "never denied" the hadith exists is another deflection. The question was always about your interpretation of what it means. You think pointing to end-times prophecy about a minority of Jews following the false Messiah somehow proves "Islam calls for unrestricted violence against Jews." I systematically dismantled that interpretation with proper textual context, which you aren't addressing, because you simply can't. Fourth, you accuse me of "moving goalposts" when you're the one who abandoned your original argument. You affirmed that Islamic doctrine calls for unrestricted violence against Jews, I challenged you to explain why Muhammad's direct companion Umar ibn al-Khattab invited Jews back to Jerusalem after 500 years of Christian expulsion, and you've never answered. Instead, you're now retreating to vague claims about "many reasons Islam is violent" without specifying any. In fact your Umar ibn al-Khattab deflection proves you don't understand the example. You mention him as if it supports your position, but Umar's protection of Jews directly contradicts your claim that Islam mandates violence against them. You're citing evidence against your own argument. If what you say is true, he would not have invited them back to Jerusalem, and he would slaughter them in any case. It's very clear that when pressed for basic rigor, you flee to different threads hoping people won't notice your contradictions. You promised to stop communicating with me multiple times but keep returning because you are lathered in the discomfort from being so absolutely deconstructed. What we have here is your inability to defend the interpretations you're making from the citations you provide. That's the difference between scholarship and propaganda.