Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434708827

Message started by Lord Herbert on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:13pm

Title: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Lord Herbert on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:13pm
... and therein lies the problem, says a professor.

Moderate Muslims cannot condemn the violent extremists on religious grounds because what they are doing is not heresy according to Islam.

The Moderates have no religious grounds upon which to either condemn their violent brethren or recall them home from ISIS.

A very interesting and informative article by Rita Panahi.

"But unlike some of his colleagues in academia who have jumped on the anti-­terror gravy train, Professor Kessler, who has studied Islam, including militant Islam, for more than 50 years, can see that deradicalisation is a strategy doomed to failure.

The main reason being that the extremists within the faith are not guilty of heresy, indeed they represent many of the same views and belief systems that are entirely compatible with the doctrine of Islam.


Prof Kessler explains that an equal number of Muslims worldwide, about 10 to 15 per cent, are either “modernist, reform-minded and democratic” or militant extremists who support violent action.

The remainder make up the mainstream Muslim population and it is the views of this core group that ultimately determine whether deradicalisation is a fanciful notion or a genuine risk-minimisation strategy.

Professor Kessler writes: “The basic facts are clear. Like the radical fringe or fundamentalist extreme, the Muslim mainstream adheres to, through explicit affirmation or by unreflecting habitual assent, the same underlying propositions that constitute the radical and militant world view.

“So there is no ground within the mainstream for calling back the deviant minority; no distinctive standpoint, authentic and authoritative, to which the radicals may be called to ­return by abandoning their own identifiable heresies.

“So long as the two outlooks ­remain basically congruent and complementary, so-called deradicalisation of the militants back into the mainstream cannot work. It is not a likely prospect.

“It cannot succeed so long as the mainstream is not distinctively different in its basic attitudes from the radicals."


link

In both Britain and here the attention is beginning to turn to the so-called 'moderate majority' with a far more cynical and scrutinising eye than ever before.

There's an increasing recognition of the fact that the 'radicals' and the 'moderates' are in fact in the same bed together so far Islamic doctrine is concerned.

Britain's Prime Minister has just woken up to this and so has Abbott.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by moses on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Yadda on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:39pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 19th, 2015 at 8:13pm:
Professor Kessler writes: “The basic facts are clear. Like the radical fringe or fundamentalist extreme,

the Muslim mainstream adheres to, through explicit affirmation or by unreflecting habitual assent, the same underlying propositions that constitute the radical and militant world view.




British gov to Islamic Extremists: "The Game is Up
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1427968785/0#0

Why Politicians Pretend Islam, No Role in Violence
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1426238178/0#0

At last, the claim that 'ISIS is not ISLAMIC' - is beginning to be ridiculed by increasing numbers of American citizens
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1410694482/0#0






Yadda wrote on Aug 14th, 2014 at 10:49am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 14th, 2014 at 10:28am:



1. The VAST bulk of Australian Muslims in Syria are working with humanitarian NGO's

2. ISIS has NO mainstream support among Australian Muslims - aside from a "brain-washed" youth fringe element





ROFLOL





.







Quote:

"Boko Haram are also implementing this when they capture women.

This is what the Prophet Muhammad and his companions did."



      - Egyptian Human Rights Activist Ahmad Harqan





Quote:

Egypt: Ex-Muslim says Islamic State follows Qur’an, Muhammad

December 6, 2014

....
....Boko Haram are also implementing this when they capture women.

This is what the Prophet Muhammad and his companions did.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/egypt-ex-muslim-says-islamic-state-follows-quran-muhammad




.





There are no moderate [or tolerant] moslems....

.....because there is no 'moderate' ISLAM.



.



Time to face the reality; a moslem, is a moslem.

A person who SELF-DECLARES as a moslem, is a moslem.

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1418244166/15#15

Quote:

You mean that we [infidels, on OzPol] are guilty of 'stereotyping' members of the Australian mainstream moslem community!!!!

Shock horror!!!!




Fancy having the gall to associate moslems,     .......with,      .....moslems!

Fancy having the gall to associate moslems,     .......with,      .....ISLAM [and with ISLAM's laws and tenets] !


Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.


Google;
Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim




.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac"

- Yadda



QUESTION;
What about the innocent moslems ?

IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems.

How so [logically] ?

QUESTION;
How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ?


QUESTION;
How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ?


QUESTION;
How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by wally1 on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:20pm
I like this bloke, has some gonads to say western foreign policies is one of the evils of society

David Cameron, inadvertent PR man for Islamic extremists


his morning, the front page of the Daily Mail carries a stark interpretation of David Cameron’s speech on Islamic fundamentalist extremism. “PM: UK Muslims helping jihadis”, it booms in thick black text, tarring an entire slice of British citizens in one swoop. On which other community is it possible to inflict such dangerous, sweeping generalisations? The assertion being made here – explicitly, not even implicitly as is the norm – is that British Muslims as a whole are helping mass-murdering zealots inflicting carnage across Iraq, Syria and Libya. Extremists want Muslims to feel rejected, marginalised, treated as a dangerous “other” by the societies in which they live. The Daily Mail follows their script to the letter.

“Too often we hear the argument that radicalisation is the fault of someone else,” says our finger-wagging prime minister. “That blame game is wrong – and it is dangerous,” he suggests, as he berated the redirecting of blame to authorities, rather than the individual. This is the argument of those who align with Cameron’s way of thinking. There is a “blame the west” mentality which continually reduces the cause of radicalisation to western foreign policy. It infantilises radicalised Muslims, they argue, stripping them of individual agency. An evil poisonous ideology and those who propagate it are to blame, and nothing else.

    Is radicalisation all down to western foreign policy? No: it would be facile to reduce it to one thing or the other

There is no question that there is indeed a murderous ideology which, in the form of the Isis death cult, is one of the most despicable political forces on earth today. Almost all of its victims are Muslims, a fact which is too often overlooked. Extremist fundamentalist ideologies have often displaced the old secular nationalist movements that were aligned to the deceased Soviet bloc, that once positioned themselves at the head of anti-western sentiment in the Middle East. In Iraq, this shift is unambiguous: many of the the old Baathists are now helping to run Isis. It is a statement of the obvious that, without this ideology, there would be no radicalisation. And yet, when examining the rise of Nazism, we would not hesitate in examining the role of the punitive treaty of Versailles peace terms after the first world war. A history student would be graded a D- if they simply reduced the rise of Nazism to “evil”. In no way would understanding these factors behind Nazism be regarded as somehow legitimising or apologising for it.

Is radicalisation all down to western foreign policy? No: a whole range of factors are involved in radicalisation, and it would be facile to reduce it to one thing or the other. It may be different from one individual to another. But take this judgment: “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – not a whole generation, a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack upon Islam.” A statement from the Stop the War Coalition? No – it’s Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5. Is she somehow an apologist for making such an observation?

Fourteen years on from the start of the “war on terror”, and al-Qaida finally faces defeat, only not at the hands of the west, but rather by Isis, an even more extreme group. The war on Iraq was partly justified by the threat of al-Qaida, who were not present when Saddam Hussein’s murderous secular dictatorship ruled, but who ran amok in the country after the invasion. The western invasion of Libya has produced a broken, failed state increasingly succumbing to Isis and other extremist groups. We assail extremist ideologies at home, while arming and cosying up to Middle Eastern dictatorships whose kingdoms export these ideologies, and are a source of funds and arms for extremist groups in Iraq and Syria.

Here at home, polls already show all too many Britons associate Muslims with terrorism and extremism. Lady Warsi warns that “a policy of disengagement with British Muslim communities” is fuelling radicalisation, too.
Tolerant Islam should be protected

Yes, we need to challenge and confront perverse ideologies. That means working in partnership with Muslim organisations and communities, not employing a rhetoric of collective blame that does nothing but play into the hands of extremism. And yes, there are a number of factors driving radicalisation, but we should examine all of them, including factors within our control, such as (but not exclusively) western foreign policy and support for dictatorships complicit in the rise of jihadi terrorism. I fear, though, that currently, we are doing exactly what our opponents will us to do.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Sprintcyclist on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:33pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


I have but no one wants to play, Sprint so I feel it necessary to ask the question in this thread about Islamic atrocities.  I wonder why all the Islamophobes only address Islamic atrocities and ignore Christian ones?   ::) ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:41pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


I have but no one wants to play, Sprint so I feel it necessary to ask the question in this thread about Islamic atrocities.  I wonder why all the Islamophobes only address Islamic atrocities and ignore Christian ones?   ::) ::)



because there is just so much more to choose from?

Because it is the ENTIRE range of atrocities today?


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Karnal on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:51pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


I have but no one wants to play, Sprint so I feel it necessary to ask the question in this thread about Islamic atrocities.  I wonder why all the Islamophobes only address Islamic atrocities and ignore Christian ones?   ::) ::)



because there is just so much more to choose from?

Because it is the ENTIRE range of atrocities today?


Questions, questions.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Lord Herbert on Jun 20th, 2015 at 8:22pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


Yes, Brian - stop trolling.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 20th, 2015 at 8:25pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


I have but no one wants to play, Sprint so I feel it necessary to ask the question in this thread about Islamic atrocities.  I wonder why all the Islamophobes only address Islamic atrocities and ignore Christian ones?   ::) ::)



because there is just so much more to choose from?

Because it is the ENTIRE range of atrocities today?


As against yesteryear's range of atrocities?   ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 20th, 2015 at 8:26pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


Yes, Brian - stop trolling.


So speaks the Master of Trolling...    ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by moses on Jun 20th, 2015 at 8:44pm

Quote:
moses wrote:[quote]All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities


Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:
Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?
[/quote]

Gladly Brian however you will have to give me the teachings of Christ which would engender Christians engaging in said human sacrifice, rape, torture and mass murder.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 21st, 2015 at 12:16am

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

Quote:
moses wrote:[quote]All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities


Brian Ross wrote:[quote]Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?
[/quote]

Gladly Brian however you will have to give me the teachings of Christ which would engender Christians engaging in said human sacrifice, rape, torture and mass murder.[/quote]

I've an idea, Moses, why not ask the Christians who engaged in said "human sacrifice, rape, torture and mass murder" how they justified themselves using their religion?   Joseph Kony for one is very much alive who does those things, IIRC...   ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by moses on Jun 21st, 2015 at 3:03pm
Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:
I've an idea, Moses, why not ask the Christians who engaged in said "human sacrifice, rape, torture and mass murder" how they justified themselves using their religion?   Joseph Kony for one is very much alive who does those things, IIRC...


Having difficulty finding a teaching of Christ which urges evil Brian?

Not to worry, Christianity is not based on human rights atrocities, that's the domain of islam

Now to get to your response, first we have to ascertain if they really are Christians.

Because merely calling yourself Christian is not a dependable action Brian, meeting the criteria of Christ is the only sure way.

You know like Christ told his followers:

Mat 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mar 7:7  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So the truthfull answer is, workers of iniquity / evilness are rejected by Christ, they are most definitely not Christian.

But then again you already knew this Brian, it's just you desperately using any lie you can come up with, in order to excuse islamic atrocities.

So back to my original statement:

All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities   

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 21st, 2015 at 3:36pm

moses wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 3:03pm:
Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:
I've an idea, Moses, why not ask the Christians who engaged in said "human sacrifice, rape, torture and mass murder" how they justified themselves using their religion?   Joseph Kony for one is very much alive who does those things, IIRC...


Having difficulty finding a teaching of Christ which urges evil Brian?


Not really, 'cause I haven't tried, Moses.   Would you like me to try?

How about a teaching of the Church which urges evil, Moses, would that qualify?

Don't forget, Churches teach Christianity...    ::)


Quote:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities   


How about Christians who don't denounce their Christian tenets/doctrine which spawns those Christian depravities, Moses?   You still going to ignore what happens out the back in the sacristy?   ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by moses on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:18pm
The teachings of muhammad contained in the qur'an, purported to be the literal word of allah, defines legitimate deeds a muslim may follow.

Human rights atrocities are the foundation of a myriad of muhammad's teachings.

muslims committing these depravities can genuinely call themselves muslims.   

The Word Of Christ contained in the New Testament, delimitates genuine Christian works and Christian qualities.

It quiet clearly states iniquitous people are rejected.

The teachings of Christ are not based on inhumanities.

Therefore people claiming the fellowship of Christ while working evil, decidedly do not meet Christian criteria.(Mat 15:9  Mar 7:7  Mat 7:21  Mat 7:22  Mat 7:23)

Now to get back on topic: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy

My original statement stands unchallenged:

All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 8:15pm
Gandalf will defend a Muslim who slaughtered hundreds of unarmed Jewish POWs for being treacherous Jews on the grounds that they posed a political threat to the fledgling Islamic state.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 8:23pm

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 8:15pm:
Gandalf will defend a Muslim who slaughtered hundreds of unarmed Jewish POWs for being treacherous Jews on the grounds that they posed a political threat to the fledgling Islamic state.

That's different.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:15pm

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 8:15pm:
treacherous Jews


This is FD never pulling the race card. He really hates that childish tactic.

Whats his favourite phrase? Oh yes, 'thats wasist'

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:34pm
Were they treacherous Jews Gandalf?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Lionel Edriess on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:57pm

What is it now, the total killed by Islam?

200 million? 400 million?

Can anyone answer?

The past atrocities by other religions would pale by comparison.

And there seems no end in sight.

So what is the answer?



Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 12:20am

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:57pm:
What is it now, the total killed by Islam?

200 million? 400 million?

Can anyone answer?

The past atrocities by other religions would pale by comparison.

And there seems no end in sight.

So what is the answer?


I wouldn't bet on it, Lionel.   Christianity in its Imperialism in the New World was considered to have killed quite a few millions, some directly, most through the introduction of various diseases.    In Asia, Christianity also supported Imperialism by the European powers, again millions dead.   I can't think of a single Buddhist Crusade, funny that...   ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 7:56pm

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:34pm:
Were they treacherous Jews Gandalf?


No FD - because the term has obvious racist connotations, which you are well aware of. I'm not partaking in your childish version of "thats wasist" - a tactic which you yourself love to mock.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Lionel Edriess on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 8:42pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 12:20am:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:57pm:
What is it now, the total killed by Islam?

200 million? 400 million?

Can anyone answer?

The past atrocities by other religions would pale by comparison.

And there seems no end in sight.

So what is the answer?


I wouldn't bet on it, Lionel.   Christianity in its Imperialism in the New World was considered to have killed quite a few millions, some directly, most through the introduction of various diseases.    In Asia, Christianity also supported Imperialism by the European powers, again millions dead.   I can't think of a single Buddhist Crusade, funny that...   ::)


Don't get out much, do you.

What of the Rohingya?

Admittedly they are Muslim, but who are their persecutors? Hmmmm?

Then again, when you spell 'Crusade' with a capital letter, one supposes you are referring to the ancient Christians - perhaps in the case mentioned it should be 'crusade'.

As things stand at the moment, I'd hesitate to call the Daesh movement a 'Crusade'. It might upset their 'sensibilities'.

8-)


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 8:48pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 8:42pm:
Don't get out much, do you.


Nope, not since I've had kids.  Do you?


Quote:
What of the Rohingya?

Admittedly they are Muslim, but who are their persecutors? Hmmmm?


Well, we could also discuss the Buddhist Sinhallese and their persecution of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, now couldn't we?

However, neither really qualifies as a "Crusade", in that neither is centrally led by a Buddhist Pope or Buddhist Royality, now is it?


Quote:
Then again, when you spell 'Crusade' with a capital letter, one supposes you are referring to the ancient Christians - perhaps in the case mentioned it should be 'crusade'.

As things stand at the moment, I'd hesitate to call the Daesh movement a 'Crusade'. It might upset their 'sensibilities'.

8-)


Oh, I think they are a bit beyond worrying about what you or I or anybody else says about them.  We are, afterall, untermensch to their obermensch, now aren't we, Lionel?    ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 9:48pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 7:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:34pm:
Were they treacherous Jews Gandalf?


No FD - because the term has obvious racist connotations, which you are well aware of. I'm not partaking in your childish version of "thats wasist" - a tactic which you yourself love to mock.


Why does the answer depend on the 'obvious racist connotations'?

Let's try making this a bit easier for you to give a straight answer.

Were they Jews?

Were they treacherous?

I can ask in separate posts if there are connotations involved in putting these two questions in the same post. I don't mind, I am used to talking to Muslims. I understand if you consider it important not to be racist when chopping people's heads off.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by issuevoter on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 9:50pm
Sorry Herb, I cannot go along with the professor, or the Muslim and Christian whackos who post here. They are all symptoms of the same problem. The professor buys into the whole idea of Islam in groups of acceptability, when it is actually about whether Mohamed is the messenger of God or not. Sure some are going to be more violent than others, but if you trust them just because they say they are moderate, you’d give change for a nine bob note. As for the Christos and Muzheads, I wish they would all go back to their Middle East Holy Land and move in with the Jews where they can all be closer to their one true God. One true God, now there’s a brilliant piece of logic. These people actually believe they are logical thinkers.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 9:55pm
Brian, are you still trying to use Joseph Kony to represent "real Christianity" and while pretending "real Islam" is some unfathomable mystery?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 24th, 2015 at 7:56am

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 9:48pm:
Why does the answer depend on the 'obvious racist connotations'?


Its quite simple FD, you cannot say "scheming jews" without being racist. Thtas the reality of the society we live in, and you are well aware of it. Thats why you are trying to bait me with it. Its not much different to me arguing "oh but "black person" is just different spelling for "negroe". And yet I've no doubt you find the term so offensive that the letters will be censored as soon as I post it. Because the term is highly offensive in the context of our society - just like the term "scheming jew" - because they are well known as synonymous for racist bigotry.

You have made it clear you believe Mohammad was anti-semitic bigot, you have made it clear you believe muslims are rabidly anti-semtic bigots - and you are trying to pin it on me.

Its just you childish version of "that wasist" - and like every "thats wasist" argument, its designed to shut down debate.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 24th, 2015 at 12:46pm
I understand Gandalf. Although, the phrase in question is "treacherous Jew" which is only familiar to me in the context of Muhammed slaughtering innocent people. In any case, I have a convenient workaround.

Were they Jews?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:07pm
They were jews - but being jews was not the reason they were executed. And you simply lose all ability to argue that point once you start using universally understood racist labels like 'treacherous jews'.

Put it this way - if a group of Australians betrayed their country - and they just happened to be jews, would you call them "treacherous jews" - after all they are jews and they are traitors right? No of course you wouldn't, and the reasons are obvious.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Sprintcyclist on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:20pm

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 9:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 7:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 9:34pm:
Were they treacherous Jews Gandalf?


No FD - because the term has obvious racist connotations, which you are well aware of. I'm not partaking in your childish version of "thats wasist" - a tactic which you yourself love to mock.


Why does the answer depend on the 'obvious racist connotations'?

Let's try making this a bit easier for you to give a straight answer.

Were they Jews?

Were they treacherous?

I can ask in separate posts if there are connotations involved in putting these two questions in the same post. I don't mind, I am used to talking to Muslims. I understand if you consider it important not to be racist when chopping people's heads off.




Quote:
.....Let's try making this a bit easier for you to give a straight answer.....
I can almost guarantee gandalf will not answer. Muslims do not answer questions.



Quote:
..........I understand if you consider it important not to be racist when chopping people's heads off.....

true, muslims behead anyone. Even other muslims.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 24th, 2015 at 4:58pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:20pm:
I can almost guarantee gandalf will not answer.


and I can definitely guarantee that sprint will just ignore the very real answer I gave and once again attempt to caricature me as "the typical muslim".

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 24th, 2015 at 6:50pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:07pm:
They were jews - but being jews was not the reason they were executed. And you simply lose all ability to argue that point once you start using universally understood racist labels like 'treacherous jews'.

Put it this way - if a group of Australians betrayed their country - and they just happened to be jews, would you call them "treacherous jews" - after all they are jews and they are traitors right? No of course you wouldn't, and the reasons are obvious.


Were they treacherous?


Quote:
and I can definitely guarantee that sprint will just ignore the very real answer I gave and once again attempt to caricature me as "the typical muslim".


Would it be more appropriate to characterise Muhammed as a typical Muslim and you as an atypical one?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 24th, 2015 at 8:14pm
I'm interested in your answer to my question FD.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 24th, 2015 at 8:18pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 6:50pm:
Would it be more appropriate to characterise Muhammed as a typical Muslim and you as an atypical one?


Of course - the raping, pillaging, intolerant warmonger is the "real" muslim, and I'm the "fake" muslim for opposing rapings and intolerance.

Thats the correct answer isn't it?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 24th, 2015 at 8:54pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 6:50pm:
Would it be more appropriate to characterise Muhammed as a typical Muslim and you as an atypical one?


Of course - the raping, pillaging, intolerant warmonger is the "real" muslim, and I'm the "fake" muslim for opposing rapings and intolerance.

Thats the correct answer isn't it?


Perhaps you should invent your own religion.

What question? The one about treacherous Jews?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Karnal on Jun 25th, 2015 at 12:14am
What were you saying about Muslims and questions, Sprint?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:26am

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 8:54pm:
What question? The one about treacherous Jews?


If you identified a group of Australians who betrayed the country - and who also happened to be jews - would you label them "treacherous jews"? After all they are treacherous and they are jews right?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Lord Herbert on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:32am

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 9:55pm:
Brian, are you still trying to use Joseph Kony to represent "real Christianity" and while pretending "real Islam" is some unfathomable mystery?


;D ;D ;D

Dear O dear ... and Christ wept for His people ...

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Yadda on Jun 25th, 2015 at 11:12am

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
and I can definitely guarantee that sprint will just ignore the very real answer I gave and once again attempt to caricature me as "the typical muslim".


Would it be more appropriate to characterise Muhammed as a typical Muslim and you as an atypical one?


FD,
IMO, it would be appropriate to characterise both gandalf, and, Mohammed as typical moslems.

Isn't that right gandalf ?



.




Mohammed;

" The Prophet said, "War is deceit." "
hadith/bukhari/ #004.052.269


"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #005.059.369




.





Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims
London, Sept.8 [2007]
A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is...a regular visitor to Britain.
Polite and softly spoken....
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire non-Muslim world was intent on destroying Islam, but justifies an aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece



.




polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 12th, 2014 at 9:35pm:

And since the vast majority of muslims *DO* adhere to my version of peaceful/tolerant islam - I'd say I (or rather "my side" - if you like)  have been rather successful no?






.


FOR EXAMPLE;

gandalf's 'brother', Mr Yunus [in Darwin] is another moslem, who is absolutely certain that ISLAM is a peaceful religion.

---------- >




Quote:

"Peace summarises everything in Islam, because it means

submitting your will to God,

so you acquire peace through it," he said.

"When I'm following its [i.e. ISLAM's] teachings,

I know that my own actions are in line     with what my creator wants,

and hence I am at peace with myself, [with] my community and the rest of the world."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-19/darwins-muslim-community-tackles-discrimination-at-meeting/6025586?section=nt



EXAMPLE - of a moslem engaging in, a 'peaceful' 'stealth' Jihad, here in Australia, FALSELY promoting ISLAM as a 'peaceful' faith.....

------------- >

IMAGE....


"Mr Yunus has been encouraging peaceful community bridging since starting his post as Darwin's Islamic leader in 2014."

Mr Yunus is a typical moslem.

Mr Yunus is a typical follower of ISLAM.




.



Mr Yunus is another typical moslem.

And imo,          Mr Yunus is intentionally misrepresenting ISLAM to us [to all Australians],
       in those public statements which he has made.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 25th, 2015 at 12:39pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:26am:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 8:54pm:
What question? The one about treacherous Jews?


If you identified a group of Australians who betrayed the country - and who also happened to be jews - would you label them "treacherous jews"? After all they are treacherous and they are jews right?


Like I already said, I have only seen the term treacherous used this way by Muslims trying to justify Muhammed slaughtering innocent people. I am more familiar with treacherous used to describe things like bar crossings. So I am not going to start using it that way myself. This is not the same thing as arguing that the 'racist connotations' somehow change the facts of the matter and I think it would be ludicrous to insist on this basis, as you do, that they are not treacherous Jews.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:07pm:
They were jews - but being jews was not the reason they were executed. And you simply lose all ability to argue that point once you start using universally understood racist labels like 'treacherous jews'.

Put it this way - if a group of Australians betrayed their country - and they just happened to be jews, would you call them "treacherous jews" - after all they are jews and they are traitors right? No of course you wouldn't, and the reasons are obvious.


Were they treacherous?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Sprintcyclist on Jun 25th, 2015 at 1:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:20pm:
I can almost guarantee gandalf will not answer.


and I can definitely guarantee that sprint will just ignore the very real answer I gave and once again attempt to caricature me as "the typical muslim".


Sorry Gandalf, I missed your answer.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Gnads on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


I have but no one wants to play, Sprint so I feel it necessary to ask the question in this thread about Islamic atrocities.  I wonder why all the Islamophobes only address Islamic atrocities and ignore Christian ones?   ::) ::)


This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by greggerypeccary on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:18pm

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

moses wrote on Jun 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
All muslims and their cowardly apologist sycophants, daily show their support for the unspeakable atrocities (islamic human sacrifice, islamic rape, torture and mass murder), by refusing to denounce islamic tenets / doctrine which spawns these muslim depravities. 


Care to address Christian atrocities as well, Moses or is your venom only reserved for one side of the sectarian fence?    ::)


Alert - muslim diversion.

Stay on thread please brian.
You can start your own thread on Christian atrocities.


I have but no one wants to play, Sprint so I feel it necessary to ask the question in this thread about Islamic atrocities.  I wonder why all the Islamophobes only address Islamic atrocities and ignore Christian ones?   ::) ::)


This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY



This guy cracks me up.  Then again, he's a comedian - that's his job.

"a cynical weapon of cultural terrorism"      ;D

No wonder the Islamophobes love him so much.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:20pm

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm:
This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Gnads, why should I listen to an entertainer?    ::)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 25th, 2015 at 6:45pm

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 12:39pm:
This is not the same thing as arguing that the 'racist connotations' somehow change the facts of the matter and I think it would be ludicrous to insist on this basis, as you do, that they are not treacherous Jews.


How long do you think a reporter in a mainstream paper would last using the phrase - irrespective of whether or not it was factually accurate?

You feign naivety now FD, yet you somehow thought it very important that I admit they were "treacherous jews". So you can't have it both ways - its either a mundane and insignificant statement of fact, or something deeply sinister - it can't be both.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 25th, 2015 at 6:53pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm:
This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Gnads, why should I listen to an entertainer?    ::)


He is far more accurate and articulate than any defender of Islamic doctrines. He is certainly far more articulate and knowledgeable than you or gweggowy.

SO you should both listen to learn. Do you want to learn, Brain, or do you  know everything already? And if you think you are smart, you should mebbe refute any or all the points he is making. Now there's a challenge for the goddamned Rousseau of Ozpolitic.







Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:03pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 12:39pm:
This is not the same thing as arguing that the 'racist connotations' somehow change the facts of the matter and I think it would be ludicrous to insist on this basis, as you do, that they are not treacherous Jews.


How long do you think a reporter in a mainstream paper would last using the phrase - irrespective of whether or not it was factually accurate?

You feign naivety now FD, yet you somehow thought it very important that I admit they were "treacherous jews". So you can't have it both ways - its either a mundane and insignificant statement of fact, or something deeply sinister - it can't be both.


What's sinister is you willingly defending a bloke who chopped the heads of 800 unarmed Jewish POWs on the grounds that they were treacherous Jews, but you get all wound up about the phrasing.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:07pm:
They were jews - but being jews was not the reason they were executed. And you simply lose all ability to argue that point once you start using universally understood racist labels like 'treacherous jews'.

Put it this way - if a group of Australians betrayed their country - and they just happened to be jews, would you call them "treacherous jews" - after all they are jews and they are traitors right? No of course you wouldn't, and the reasons are obvious.


Were they treacherous?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:43pm

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:03pm:
but you get all wound up about the phrasing.


And yet its your phrase. But strangely a phrase which you just claimed that you would not use yourself in that context. Go figure.

Tell me this FD - where did you get the phrase, and why did you deem it appropriate in this instance?


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:47pm

Quote:
And yet its your phrase. But strangely a phrase which you just claimed that you would not use yourself in that context. Go figure.


I said I had seen it in the context of Muslims excusing mass murder by Muhammed. That is the context I used it in.


Quote:
Tell me this FD - where did you get the phrase, and why did you deem it appropriate in this instance?


You, Abu, etc.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 1:07pm:
They were jews - but being jews was not the reason they were executed. And you simply lose all ability to argue that point once you start using universally understood racist labels like 'treacherous jews'.

Put it this way - if a group of Australians betrayed their country - and they just happened to be jews, would you call them "treacherous jews" - after all they are jews and they are traitors right? No of course you wouldn't, and the reasons are obvious.


Were they treacherous?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Gnads on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:53pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm:
This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Gnads, why should I listen to an entertainer?    ::)


Why should anyone listen to you & other apologists like Gweggowy?

This bloke is obviously not in an entertainment/comedic mode ... something he hasn't done since the 1990's.... he's speaking seriously about a growing problem with Islam in the west & the self loathing apologists who can do nowt but make up catch/buzzwords like Islamphobe or Islamaphobia to discredit anyone who is critical of the political correctness being applied to matters to do with Muslims.

He is far more articulate & precise in his dialogue than you pair could ever aspire to .....

half arzery seems to be your forte.

As stated ... try refuting his claims instead of making yourself look like the same sort of dills he describes.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 25th, 2015 at 8:09pm

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:47pm:
You, Abu, etc.


Please quote me where I ever used the phrase. Thanks.


freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:47pm:
I said I had seen it in the context of Muslims excusing mass murder by Muhammed. That is the context I used it in.


You mean sinister muslims being sinister. Right.

Will you at least admit that you are trying to wedge me into saying something that makes me sound like a racist bigot? Be honest here FD.

Yes they were treacherous, but thats not what you are asking is it? A 7th century ruler - even a religious prophet - executing a group of men for actual treachery wouldn't rate a mention. But make them victims of jewish bigotry, then we've got the perfect basis for a smear don't we? If you were honest you would admit that you want me to say "treacherous jews" because you are acutely aware that the phrase is synonymous with racist bigotry - and ergo, that would make Muhammad a racist bigot, and therefore me a racist bigot. Sorry FD, I won't bite - I won't accept that the Banu Qurayza were killed because Muhammad had a grudge against jews, he killed them for conspiring with an enemy which was attempting to commit genocide against them - and breaking the treaty they had with Muhammad. They being jewish (itself an arguable historical point anyway) shouldn't even come into the debate.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:07pm
So they were treacherous and they were Jews, but they were not treacherous Jews because that would be racist. They were of course, dead Jews, once Muhammed had his way with them. All 800 of them. And of course this has nothing to do with Muhammed becoming increasingly frustrated with the reluctance of Jews to convert to Islam, despite his sincere warnings to them of the dangers of remaining Jews. Nor does it have anything to do with them being the last remaining of 3 large Jewish tribes that stood between Muhammed and absolute power in Medina. Muhammed killed them for being treacherous. He could tell they were treacherous, because they were all members of the same group of treacherous Jews, which has nothing to do with them being Jews. Nothing at all. I can tell you are sneering right now. Stop sneering at me.

Does that about sum it up Gandalf?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.






Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by greggerypeccary on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:27pm

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm:
This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Gnads, why should I listen to an entertainer?    ::)


Why should anyone listen to you & other apologists like Gweggowy?

This bloke is obviously not in an entertainment/comedic mode ... something he hasn't done since the 1990's....




OMG    :o

I've met gullible people before, however, you take gullibility to a completely new level.

Too funny.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by greggerypeccary on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:29pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 2:06pm:
This was done in 2012 ... & pretty much sums up all the people like yourself Brian who use the false word "Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia"... it holds more truth than the apologist blather you & your ilk post ad infinitum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Gnads, why should I listen to an entertainer?    ::)



Gnads watched the movie 'Superman', and now he believes that people can actually fly.

People never act    ;D

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Secret Wars on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:39pm
And yet you have no cohesive counter-arguments, gweggowy.

That's how thick and useless you really are: all bluster and sneering but no actual brain, argument, or articulation.


A long time union hack indeed.




Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:18pm

Quote:
You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time.


Because they are dead?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Baronvonrort on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:18pm

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.


He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.

Gandy - please explain.


$Profit Mo would be a registered sex offender if he was alive today.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:25pm

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Oh, F Vck, not another special Ed....


So by what standards may we judge/excuse Islam, genius?  7th century (their preference) or 21st century (everyone else's preference).







Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Secret Wars on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:37pm

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Oh, F Vck, not another special Ed....


So by what standards may we judge/excuse Islam, genius?  7th century (their preference) or 21st century (everyone else's preference).


I am not excusing anything.  Just saying as a matter of principle. 

And I am definately not saying you can take big mos examples from another time and apply them to modern times. 

No child brides for Muhammad of Lakemba in other words, no matter if you reckon big mo was the perfect man, it's just not on. 

I judge Islam by my standards of my time, that means to me, no head hacking, blowing up buses, or killing people cos they make fun of your sky fairy. 

Just cos big mo was of a medieval time does not excuse his followers to act like medievalists. 

Not that that will stop some of them.  And the rest of them will make excuses.  And the left will excuse them in turn from making excuses.  It's like a smacking disease.   


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Baronvonrort on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:54pm

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:37pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Oh, F Vck, not another special Ed....


So by what standards may we judge/excuse Islam, genius?  7th century (their preference) or 21st century (everyone else's preference).


I am not excusing anything.  Just saying as a matter of principle. 

And I am definately not saying you can take big mos examples from another time and apply them to modern times. 

No child brides for Muhammad of Lakemba in other words, no matter if you reckon big mo was the perfect man, it's just not on. 

I judge Islam by my standards of my time, that means to me, no head hacking, blowing up buses, or killing people cos they make fun of your sky fairy. 

Just cos big mo was of a medieval time does not excuse his followers to act like medievalists. 
 


The Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example if you want admission to the heavenly brothel.
Read all English translations- quran.com/33/21

You should ask an imam if the Quran is a book for Muhammad's time or a book for all times, they will say it's a book for all times.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Secret Wars on Jun 25th, 2015 at 11:19pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:54pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:37pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Oh, F Vck, not another special Ed....


So by what standards may we judge/excuse Islam, genius?  7th century (their preference) or 21st century (everyone else's preference).


I am not excusing anything.  Just saying as a matter of principle. 

And I am definately not saying you can take big mos examples from another time and apply them to modern times. 

No child brides for Muhammad of Lakemba in other words, no matter if you reckon big mo was the perfect man, it's just not on. 

I judge Islam by my standards of my time, that means to me, no head hacking, blowing up buses, or killing people cos they make fun of your sky fairy. 

Just cos big mo was of a medieval time does not excuse his followers to act like medievalists. 
 


The Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example if you want admission to the heavenly brothel.
Read all English translations- quran.com/33/21

You should ask an imam if the Quran is a book for Muhammad's time or a book for all times, they will say it's a book for all times.


I do get that.  And I agree, it's the reason why buggertard muslims can justify the bullshit they get up to.  For them to emulate big mo is a great thing to do. 

But it is pointless to say big mo was a pedo, but you can certainly and most definately say Muhammad from Lakemba is a pedo even if his excuse is big mo did it. 

I am not excusing buggertards, I am saying the exact opposite, big mo was a product of his time, this is not his time, we (well most of us) have moved on from the Middle Ages. 



Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Karnal on Jun 26th, 2015 at 12:00am

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Oh, F Vck, not another special Ed....


So by what standards may we judge/excuse Islam, genius?  7th century (their preference) or 21st century (everyone else's preference).


Can we go for15th century Denmark?

The skin flaying, feet burning and anal dilation technology was really something else.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 26th, 2015 at 8:43am

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 11:19pm:
But it is pointless to say big mo was a pedo, but you can certainly and most definately say Muhammad from Lakemba is a pedo even if his excuse is big mo did it.


It is not pointless. You just miss the point.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am

Karnal wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 12:00am:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.



You cannot take people out of a time and try them by the  standards of another time. 

Oh, F Vck, not another special Ed....


So by what standards may we judge/excuse Islam, genius?  7th century (their preference) or 21st century (everyone else's preference).


Can we go for15th century Denmark?

The skin flaying, feet burning and anal dilation technology was really something else.



Which 15th century Dane is treated today as a role model for all times, PB?


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:07pm:
So they were treacherous and they were Jews, but they were not treacherous Jews because that would be racist. They were of course, dead Jews, once Muhammed had his way with them. All 800 of them. And of course this has nothing to do with Muhammed becoming increasingly frustrated with the reluctance of Jews to convert to Islam, despite his sincere warnings to them of the dangers of remaining Jews. Nor does it have anything to do with them being the last remaining of 3 large Jewish tribes that stood between Muhammed and absolute power in Medina. Muhammed killed them for being treacherous. He could tell they were treacherous, because they were all members of the same group of treacherous Jews, which has nothing to do with them being Jews. Nothing at all. I can tell you are sneering right now. Stop sneering at me.

Does that about sum it up Gandalf?


*yawn* - nothing here that we haven't covered ad-nauseum here before.

What this boils down to is you cannot accept that a muslim can be true to his religion at the same time genuinely believe that Muhammad was not acting as a racist bigot. Muslims are either a) supporters of racist bigotry or b) being dishonest. You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace. And thats the prevailing theme throughout this little forum community.

If only you would man up, you would be honest about the fact that this is a deliberate attempt to wedge me and any other muslim that refuses to fit into your pigeon hole. There is no other explanation - as you said so yourself - you want me to admit to a turn of phrase that you yourself would not even use - while at the same pretending that its a perfectly reasonable turn of phrase to use.

The context of this little stunt of yours is well known to both of us: saying a group of men were treacherous and were executed for it would barely rate a mention - not even for a man who is identified by many people as a holy prophet. But describing it as executing "treacherous jews" gives it entirely new dimensions - and you know this as well as anyone. It is different because everyone knows the term "treacherous jews" is absolutely synonymous with racist bigotry - including you. It clearly implies that the group was killed because of their jewishness, and not their treachery, and so yes, it takes on an entirely different meaning. Playing dumb like you are now and insisting that its merely putting two words that are true together is just a pathetic little game of yours. So again, why would you insist that I must adopt this racist bigotry - when you know perfectly well that I reject the 'racist bigot' version of the historical Muhammad? Well of course we know why - because muslims must fit into your pigeon hole

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:10am

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.


I dispute your second claim - I think it can be argued that Moses was the founder of a major religion, and the "crimes" of Muhammad pale in comparison to his.

But what is your point Soren - are you playing FD's wedge game of insisting that muslims must be pigeon-holed as either honest rabid bloodthirsty bigots, or mendacious liars? I'm genuinely curious as to what place you and FD think there is for muslims who are neither mendacious nor bloodthirsty bigots - if they are only going to be treated with deep suspicion. To be honest I really can't figure out this position that refuses to acknowledge simple common decency to treat honest, law abiding muslims who claim to reject your version of the historical Muhammad (as well as Islamic doctrine) - as somehow deeply sinister and deceitful.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Yadda on Jun 26th, 2015 at 11:11am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am:

*yawn* - nothing here that we haven't covered ad-nauseum here before.

What this boils down to is you cannot accept that a muslim can be true to his religion at the same time genuinely believe that Muhammad was not acting as a racist bigot.

Muslims are either a) supporters of racist bigotry or b) being dishonest.

You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace.

And thats the prevailing theme throughout this little forum community.



"an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace." = = consult the Koran, read its verses,      and reason will convince you, that such a creature ["an honest muslim"      "a muslim who supports for tolerance and peace"] is an artifice, a fabrication, a manufactured lie.


gandalf,

Allah contradicts you.


http://quran.com/9/16-23

He who strives in the cause of Allah, is above the moslem who avoids Jihad, in the cause of Allah.

Those who are at peace with the enemies of Allah, are 'hypocrites' [not moslems,       unless being at peace with the enemies of Allah is a ruse, and a deception by the moslem - Qur'an 3:28].

9:19
Sahih International
Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Haram equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and strives in the cause of Allah ? They are not equal in the sight of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

9:20
Sahih International
The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah . And it is those who are the attainers [of success].




http://quran.com/9/38-39

"you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah.....If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment"

Sahih International
9:38
O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.

9:39
Sahih International
If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent.




http://quran.com/9/41-42

Allah knows that the 'hypocrites' are liars [i.e. infidels]

9:41
Sahih International
Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah . That is better for you, if you only knew.

9:42
Sahih International
Had it been an easy gain and a moderate trip, the hypocrites would have followed you, but distant to them was the journey. And they will swear by Allah , "If we were able, we would have gone forth with you," destroying themselves [through false oaths], and Allah knows that indeed they are liars.



see also...
http://quran.com/9/49-60
http://quran.com/9/81-87



.





Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1430227148/14#14

Quote:

ISLAM is a philosophy which promotes and encourages moslems [who live within a stronger non-moslem jurisdiction] to engage in a relationship of veiled hostility towards that non-moslem jurisdiction.

And then, when many moslem individuals 'fail to thrive' within any non-moslem jurisdiction, the moslem community en-masse claim victimhood status, and insistently claim that moslems are the victims of hostility and prejudice from non-moslems.






[quote]July 28, 2006
Islamic Dictionary for Infidels

...Robert Spencer, ..."Religious deception of unbelievers is indeed taught by the Qur'an itself: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them" (Qur'an 3:28). In other words, don't make friends with unbelievers except to "guard yourselves from them": pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them. The distinguished Qur'anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that this verse teaches that if "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers," they may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly."
Google



Google,
we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"




Quote:

A Study in Muslim Doctrine

"...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden,

insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."


http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

[/quote]


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Yadda on Jun 26th, 2015 at 11:28am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am:

*yawn* - nothing here that we haven't covered ad-nauseum here before.

What this boils down to is you cannot accept that a muslim can be true to his religion at the same time genuinely believe that Muhammad was not acting as a racist bigot.

Muslims are either a) supporters of racist bigotry or b) being dishonest.

You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace.

And thats the prevailing theme throughout this little forum community.



"an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace." = = consult the Koran, read its verses,      and reason will convince you, that such a creature ["an honest muslim"      "a muslim who supports for tolerance and peace"] is an artifice, a fabrication, a manufactured lie.


gandalf,

Allah contradicts you.

"Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand.
Koran 47.33-35




gandalf,

In your [supposed] sincerity [calling for moslem tolerance and peace, with disbelievers] Allah would call you one of those who "hinder men from the Cause of Allah".

In your [supposed] sincerity, Allah calls people such as you, the 'hypocrite'.



gandalf,

I'm just preaching authentic ISLAMIC doctrine at you!

You have to make peace, with your own heart.



.



SINCERE MOSLEMS CANNOT BE THE FRIENDS OF DISBELIEVERS

ALLAH DOES NOT PERMIT MOSLEMS TO BE THE FRIENDS OF DISBELIEVERS


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51




Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 26th, 2015 at 2:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:10am:

Soren wrote on Jun 25th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
Today Mohammed would be indicted as a war criminal and if caught and tried, he would be convicted and jailed for a very long time.



He is the only founder of a major religion who would find himself in this predicament today.




Gandy - please explain.


I dispute your second claim - I think it can be argued that Moses was the founder of a major religion, and the "crimes" of Muhammad pale in comparison to his.

But what is your point Soren

My point is that he was a nasty, randy warlord, his doctrines are a hotch-potch of confused, half-understood borrowings.
So neither the person nor his 'revelations' have anything to offer them to a thinking person.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 26th, 2015 at 2:06pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am:
You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace.



Islam means submission, not tolerance and peace.

That and the historical evidence may have something to do with not believing in Islam standing for tolerance and peace.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 26th, 2015 at 4:59pm
As I said - you simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace. So where does that leave 20% of the world's population S? I'm curious.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:16pm
You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views: that Mohammed was the best of men and a prophet of god whose teachings and example you sincerely believe and follow on the one hand - and that you are an honest supporter of peace and tolerance.

One or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:34pm

Quote:
Will you at least admit that you are trying to wedge me into saying something that makes me sound like a racist bigot? Be honest here FD.


Not sure why you keep thinking this is about racism Gandalf. Are you suggesting it is OK to slaughter innocent people so long as you put a politically correct spin on it?


Quote:
Yes they were treacherous, but thats not what you are asking is it?


First I asked if they were treacherous Jews, but you argued that the racist connotations somehow changed the facts. So then I asked if they were Jews. Then I asked if they were treacherous.


Quote:
A 7th century ruler - even a religious prophet - executing a group of men for actual treachery wouldn't rate a mention.


How did he know that all 800 of them were "actually treacherous"? You have personally argued that their belonging to the group of treacherous Jews made them individually treacherous, by invoking the rule of Borg. Not sure how you can differentiate this from racist bigotry.


Quote:
But make them victims of jewish bigotry, then we've got the perfect basis for a smear don't we?


Of course. It's hard to criticise someone for executing 800 innocent people without trial in a single day. But you get upset if we portray Muhammed as a racist bigot....


Quote:
If you were honest you would admit that you want me to say "treacherous jews" because you are acutely aware that the phrase is synonymous with racist bigotry


Wrong. As I pointed out, it is synonymous with Islamic apologism. You even demonstrated this yourself when you cited "scheming Jew" as the western stereotype.


Quote:
Sorry FD, I won't bite - I won't accept that the Banu Qurayza were killed because Muhammad had a grudge against jews, he killed them for conspiring with an enemy which was attempting to commit genocide against them - and breaking the treaty they had with Muhammad. They being jewish (itself an arguable historical point anyway) shouldn't even come into the debate.


So why did Muhammed bring it into the debate?


Quote:
What this boils down to is you cannot accept that a muslim can be true to his religion at the same time genuinely believe that Muhammad was not acting as a racist bigot. Muslims are either a) supporters of racist bigotry or b) being dishonest. You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace. And thats the prevailing theme throughout this little forum community.


This is how Muhammed publicly addressed the second of two powerful Jewish tribes in Medina that  stood between him and absolute rule, prior to getting rid of them. The other tribe he references is the first of the powerful Jewish tribes he got rid of.

O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you.

Do you support this Gandalf?

BTW, I accept that people believe all sorts of crazy things. In order to deceive others you must first deceive yourself.


Quote:
There is no other explanation - as you said so yourself - you want me to admit to a turn of phrase that you yourself would not even use - while at the same pretending that its a perfectly reasonable turn of phrase to use.


Because it is unfamiliar to me, except coming from Islamic apologists in the exact context we are now discussing.


Quote:
The context of this little stunt of yours is well known to both of us: saying a group of men were treacherous and were executed for it would barely rate a mention


If Australia executed 800 Jews without trial I think it would rate a mention Gandalf. In Muhammed's case, this was the majority of the Jewish men still under his authority. If we managed a similar feat today it would be rightly considered genocide.


Quote:
But describing it as executing "treacherous jews" gives it entirely new dimensions


You have some very warped sense of priority here Gandalf.


Quote:
It clearly implies that the group was killed because of their jewishness, and not their treachery, and so yes, it takes on an entirely different meaning.


How did Muhammed know they were treacherous, other than by the fact they belonged to the tribe of treacherous Jews?


Quote:
Playing dumb like you are now and insisting that its merely putting two words that are true together is just a pathetic little game of yours.


Are you saying they were indeed treacherous Jews?


Quote:
So again, why would you insist that I must adopt this racist bigotry


I am not asking you to adopt anything. I am asking a simple question. Were the treacherous Jews?


Quote:
I dispute your second claim - I think it can be argued that Moses was the founder of a major religion, and the "crimes" of Muhammad pale in comparison to his.


In what sense are you qualify the term crime as applied to Muhammed's actions?


Quote:
I'm genuinely curious as to what place you and FD think there is for muslims who are neither mendacious nor bloodthirsty bigots


You have plenty of options open to you Gandalf.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:50pm

Quote:
To be honest I really can't figure out this position that refuses to acknowledge simple common decency to treat honest, law abiding muslims who claim to reject your version of the historical Muhammad (as well as Islamic doctrine) - as somehow deeply sinister and deceitful.


You don't reject it Gandalf. You agree with all the facts - including them being executed for being treacherous Jews. You merely try to put a positive spin on it.


Quote:
You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views


I believe he can Soren.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Yadda on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:52pm

Soren wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 2:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am:
You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace.



Islam means submission, not tolerance and peace.



S,

That is succinct!



I wish that i could be more succinct, in many of my posts,          .....and so do many others too.         ;D



Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Yadda on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:04pm

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
To be honest I really can't figure out this position that refuses to acknowledge simple common decency to treat honest, law abiding muslims who claim to reject your version of the historical Muhammad (as well as Islamic doctrine) - as somehow deeply sinister and deceitful.


You don't reject it Gandalf. You agree with all the facts - including them being executed for being treacherous Jews. You merely try to put a positive spin on it.

[quote]You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views


I believe he can Soren.

[/quote]


I believe that the psychological condition which describes such a mental state, is called Cognitive dissonance.




Quote:

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance




.






Quote:

Canada jihad murderer: “There can’t be world peace until there’s only Muslims”

Nov 22, 2014 09:07 pm | Robert Spencer


“He was always trying to convert me, (saying) ‘You should read the Qur’an, bro,’ ” Banek said.”

Yet according to mainstream analysts, Zehaf-Bibeau completely misunderstood the message of the Qur’an, and somehow got the crazy idea that it had something to do with warfare against unbelievers.

The cognitive dissonance grows by the second.
Google



I believe that many, many non-moslems also suffer from cognitive dissonance.

"ISLAM is a peaceful and tolerant faith."
- G.W. Bush,     Tony Blair,     Barak Obama,      David Cameron, et al.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:44pm

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:34pm:
blah blah blah


you really expect me to trawl through all that tedious rubbish? Sympathies for spending all that time on a nonsense post that no one is going to read. Welcome to Yadda's world FD.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:46pm
Here is the short version:

So they were treacherous and they were Jews, but they were not treacherous Jews because that would be racist. They were of course, dead Jews, once Muhammed had his way with them. All 800 of them. And of course this has nothing to do with Muhammed becoming increasingly frustrated with the reluctance of Jews to convert to Islam, despite his sincere warnings to them of the dangers of remaining Jews. Nor does it have anything to do with them being the last remaining of 3 large Jewish tribes that stood between Muhammed and absolute power in Medina. Muhammed killed them for being treacherous. He could tell they were treacherous, because they were all members of the same group of treacherous Jews, which has nothing to do with them being Jews. Nothing at all. I can tell you are sneering right now. Stop sneering at me.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:49pm
Sorry FD - I'm still reading "blah blah blah" - just in a much better format.

Here's an idea, try reading what I said before. All your fapping questions will be answered - guaranteed.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:51pm
Were they fapping treacherous Jews?

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:55pm
Awww poor FD - failing to gain traction with his troll-baiting, he attempts humour - and fails again.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by freediver on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:53pm
That's OK Gandalf, we can pick up on this again when you have had time to think about it.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Karnal on Jun 27th, 2015 at 1:01am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:34pm:
blah blah blah


you really expect me to trawl through all that tedious rubbish? Sympathies for spending all that time on a nonsense post that no one is going to read. Welcome to Yadda's world FD.


Moslem == a follower of Islam.

+++

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 27th, 2015 at 11:53am

Yadda wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:52pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 2:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:42am:
You simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace.



Islam means submission, not tolerance and peace.



S,

That is succinct!



I wish that i could be more succinct, in many of my posts,          .....and so do many others too.         ;D

You said. ;)

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jun 27th, 2015 at 1:26pm

Soren wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:16pm:
You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views: that Mohammed was the best of men and a prophet of god whose teachings and example you sincerely believe and follow on the one hand - and that you are an honest supporter of peace and tolerance.

One or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


From your point of view S, someone can be delusional - in which case their beliefs are sincere and not contradictory. I would be far happier if you and FD settled for delusional. You would still be ignoring the historical evidence - but at least you are no longer throwing the 'mendacious muslim' slur at me.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jun 29th, 2015 at 1:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:16pm:
You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views: that Mohammed was the best of men and a prophet of god whose teachings and example you sincerely believe and follow on the one hand - and that you are an honest supporter of peace and tolerance.

One or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


From your point of view S, someone can be delusional - in which case their beliefs are sincere and not contradictory. I would be far happier if you and FD settled for delusional. You would still be ignoring the historical evidence - but at least you are no longer throwing the 'mendacious muslim' slur at me.

You are not delusional, Gandy.


You know that one or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:22am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 4:59pm:
As I said - you simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace. So where does that leave 20% of the world's population S? I'm curious.

Very evidently, in a bloody bind.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by gandalf on Jul 1st, 2015 at 5:02pm

Soren wrote on Jun 29th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:16pm:
You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views: that Mohammed was the best of men and a prophet of god whose teachings and example you sincerely believe and follow on the one hand - and that you are an honest supporter of peace and tolerance.

One or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


From your point of view S, someone can be delusional - in which case their beliefs are sincere and not contradictory. I would be far happier if you and FD settled for delusional. You would still be ignoring the historical evidence - but at least you are no longer throwing the 'mendacious muslim' slur at me.

You are not delusional, Gandy.


You know that one or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


So I'm a liar - I guess  :-/

Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jul 1st, 2015 at 6:59pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 5:02pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 29th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:16pm:
You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views: that Mohammed was the best of men and a prophet of god whose teachings and example you sincerely believe and follow on the one hand - and that you are an honest supporter of peace and tolerance.

One or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


From your point of view S, someone can be delusional - in which case their beliefs are sincere and not contradictory. I would be far happier if you and FD settled for delusional. You would still be ignoring the historical evidence - but at least you are no longer throwing the 'mendacious muslim' slur at me.

You are not delusional, Gandy.


You know that one or the other belief is not entirely serious, honest or complete.


So I'm a liar - I guess  :-/

Well, if you maintain that Mohammed was the best of men, then yes, you are.


Title: Re: The 'Extremists' are not committing heresy ...
Post by Soren on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:20pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 4:59pm:
As I said - you simply cannot countenance an honest muslim who is honest in their support for tolerance and peace. So where does that leave 20% of the world's population S? I'm curious.



For a very sizable proportion, it leaves them with the choice of submit or die.

In 2015.




Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.