polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11
th, 2016 at 8:04pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 11
th, 2016 at 8:02pm:
It depends on why they booted him out.
No it doesn't actually. An attack is an attack, irrespective of whether you think its justified.
You said the Meccans never attacked him before he did. Are you prepared to retract that claim?
Why should I retract it? I have never been able to get a straight answer from Muslims on why he left Mecca, other than that children bit him and dogs spat on him whenever he sat down to pee.
Typically, the Muslim equates some kind of perceived injustice with an organised attack by a group of people, in order to justify organised hostilities by themselves or other Muslims.
Gandalf do you think this is a good example of the extreme "us vs them" characteristic of cults?
If we withdrew dual citizenship from Muslims for being terrorist supporters, could they use Islamic logic to justify stealing anything they could on it's way in to or out of Australia? Or is this behaviour by Muhammed abrogated by Muhammed's convenient revelation that theft should be punished by cutting off hands and feet, or death in the case of highway robbery? Or could they simply argue that Australia attacked them first and they are really at war, so anything goes? It's not so much a case of Muhammed withholding unpalatable parts of Islam from new recruits, it is more a matter of him making it up as he went along. Do you think that distinguishes Muhammed's band of merry head hackers from cults?
Quote:Feel free to clear this mess up with your old posts, FD.
I am happy to give you the relevant wikipedia article Karnal, unless you are completely dedicated to your state of wilfull ignorance.
Do you still insist Muhammed's rapid raise from cult leader to militant empire leader was all an act of self defense and that he was really the victim every step of the way? Do you think this Islamic victimhood industry is a key strategy used by terrorist cults to seduce new members? Why are you so keen to help them out?