Is there something in freediver-ism that compels you to skip past every point, evade every question I ask you, and resort instead to pathetic personal attacks, and repeating the same inane crap I've debunked 100 times before - again and again?

Even K wants an answer to the question I've been asking you this entire thread.

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2020 at 10:09pm:


Sure why not. And here's another one: zero percent of FD's ad revenues are sent to terrorists. What a whopper - right?? Don't forget to run a million miles from that one like you always do FD. But I know you don't need reminding.

According to the Quran's Surah Al-Tawba, there are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to benefit from zakat funds.[50]

"Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom."

— Qur'an, Sura 9 (Al-Tawba), ayat 60[51]
Islamic scholars have traditionally interpreted this verse as identifying the following eight categories of Muslim causes to be the proper recipients of zakat:[52][53]

Those living without means of livelihood (Al-Fuqarā'),[52] the poor[53]
Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn),[52] the needy[53]
To zakat collectors (Al-Āmilīyn 'Alihā)[52][53]
To persuade those sympathetic to or expected to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum),[52] recent converts to Islam,[50][53][54] and potential allies in the cause of Islam[53][55]
To free from slavery or servitude (Fir-Riqāb),[52] slaves of Muslims who have or intend to free from their master[clarification needed] by means of a kitabah contract[53][55]
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn),[52] debtors who in pursuit of a worthy goal incurred a debt[53]
Those fighting for a religious cause or a cause of God (Fī Sabīlillāh),[52] or for Jihad in the way of Allah by means of pen, word, or sword,[56] or for Islamic warriors who fight against the unbelievers but are not salaried soldiers.[53][55][57]:h8.17
Wayfarers, stranded travellers (Ibnu Al-Sabīl),[52] travellers who are traveling with a worthy goal but cannot reach their destination without financial assistance[53][55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

Halal fees are spent on Islamic charities (zakat). Islamic charities (zakat) are made available to jihadis from the time of the Koran.
There is no evidence that halal certification is exempt from being channeled to jihadis.


Gandalf, your stupid argument is akin to saying that the Irish diaspora had nuffin to do wiv funding the IRA.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:


It really is the most straight forward application of common sense imaginable FD. See if you can get it: presuming halal certifiers illegally send zero amount of their halal fees to terrorists is presuming they are innocent of the crime of sending money to terrorists. Deep I know, but I'm sure you'll get it if you put your mind to it. Perhaps if you just paused you idiotic ad-homs for 5 minutes you might have a better chance.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:


Whereas I am absolutely certain you just made that up. It is the most conventional application of presumption of innocence imaginable.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:


Gosh FD I'm so glad you're here to inform me of all the crap I apparently admit to. I astonish myself sometimes.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2020 at 8:08pm:


Presuming innocence is when you presume innocence. Like for example, when someone demands (as you did) someone else come up with a figure for the percentage of halal fees that go to terrorists - and they answer "zero" - because there is no shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

That is presumption of innocence, plain and clear. That you acdtually quibble over the absense of a "presumably" before saying "zero" just shows how absurdly petty minded you can be when you need to push your hateful and pathetic agenda. So you create this idiotic logic that saying "zero percent" in such a scenario is somehow just as much of a fabrication as saying "67.45%". Which of course is utterly ridiculous. Its pretty clear though that you don't really think this - evidenced by your endless evasion of the simple analogy of treating the same claim about a group you actually don't have vitriolic hatred towards with the same hysteria. You obviously understand the absurdity of it in those scenarios, so rather than expose your rank hypocricy you run away from it whenever I bring it up.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2020 at 8:27pm:


That you actually quibble over the absense of a "presumably" before saying "zero" just shows how absurdly petty minded you can be when you need to push your hateful and pathetic agenda.

What do you think I am forgetting? Does Islam compel you to automatically assume the best about your fellow Muslims?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2020 at 8:29pm:


It's the difference between lying and telling the truth Gandalf. Is that insignificant to a Muslim?

When Muslims reassure us about the actions or intentions of their fellow Muslims, are we to assume that they are making it all up and that they consider it to be nitpicking whether to admit it is merely an assumption?

Oh look you didn't answer FD - for the upteenth time. Fancy that!

Try again:

is it the same kind of sinister, arse-covering, "muslim" behaviour that compels me to state that zero percent of ozpolitic ad revenue goes to terrorists? Or that your spearfishing club sends zero percent of their revenue to child pornography rings? Or... hell, pick any group you like that you don't have an irrational prejudice against and who have no shred of evidence against them of financing any illegal activities - and tell me its "lying" and "stupid" and "making up stats" to state they don't send any money towards any illegal activities. Will you quibble over whether or not I put a "presumably" before zero with the same hysterics?

Well, I just put it there (again) so you can run away from it yet again.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2020 at 11:43am:

You are putting jihad in the same category as pedophilia and terrorism. You do realise that, dont you.