3 ms·

> 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 f

by 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.
- nailer 1y ago
  > You aren't responding to the fact that you're committing the composition fallacy Yes, I am. To make it simpler, I’ll use your analogy: you asked me for a car with a red door and I provided one. Even though you say you are a scholar of cars and are aware that there are many instances of cars have red doors. Furthermore, you did not thank me.
  - handfuloflight 1y ago
    Continously, utterly wrong. The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see. I never asked you to prove Islam has violent elements. I challenged your affirmation that Islam mandates unrestricted violence against Jews. You showed one end-times hadith about a minority and declared victory. Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human (which is doubtful, since you're behaving more like a broken bot at this point). One red door doesn't make the entire car red. You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them? Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion? Citation without interpretation isn't scholarship: it's Google, but in your case it's more like Altavista.
    - nailer 1y ago
      > The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see. As opposed to the classic sincere deception. > Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human No - as discussed earlier, not every follower of Islam is individually violent, like not every human is violent. > You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them? I answered this earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381029 > Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion? I answered that earlier too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44373946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44373946 I previously asked you what your own thoughts are regarding why Islam is violent, you didn’t answer. Your most recent post seems to indicate that you don’t think Islam is violent at all. What is your own explanation for the widespread worldwide occurrence of Islamic violence, if Islam itself is not violent?

by nailer 1y ago

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.

nailer 1y ago
> You aren't responding to the fact that you're committing the composition fallacy Yes, I am. To make it simpler, I’ll use your analogy: you asked me for a car with a red door and I provided one. Even though you say you are a scholar of cars and are aware that there are many instances of cars have red doors. Furthermore, you did not thank me.
- handfuloflight 1y ago
  Continously, utterly wrong. The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see. I never asked you to prove Islam has violent elements. I challenged your affirmation that Islam mandates unrestricted violence against Jews. You showed one end-times hadith about a minority and declared victory. Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human (which is doubtful, since you're behaving more like a broken bot at this point). One red door doesn't make the entire car red. You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them? Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion? Citation without interpretation isn't scholarship: it's Google, but in your case it's more like Altavista.
  - nailer 1y ago
    > The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see. As opposed to the classic sincere deception. > Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human No - as discussed earlier, not every follower of Islam is individually violent, like not every human is violent. > You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them? I answered this earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381029 > Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion? I answered that earlier too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44373946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44373946 I previously asked you what your own thoughts are regarding why Islam is violent, you didn’t answer. Your most recent post seems to indicate that you don’t think Islam is violent at all. What is your own explanation for the widespread worldwide occurrence of Islamic violence, if Islam itself is not violent?