Bluster isn't a threat that the military are going to respond to. Imagine I used the word "credible" above if you want.
In my mind there is no doubt who the good guys are in that particular conflict. Iran started it decades ago for no reason other than religious hate, has kept it up until now and Iran is the one escalating.
An ongoing war that includes all of Iran proxies.
[1] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/activities-of-saeed-iza...
Qatar has probably funded Hamas more than Iran and now the future Air Force One is a Qatari plane...
“Qatar has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level”
- Donald J. Trump - June 2017
What's wrong with this picture? (And I don't mean in the sense of a Futurama meme of Farnsworth saying "I don't want to live on this planet any more").
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Reality is Israel is run by psychopaths who would be in jail if it weren't for their their cynical use of constant war as a misdirection.
Much like the US. And Russia. And numerous other countries, some of which are still pretending to be democratic.
The entire world order is built on greed, lies, narcissistic grandiosity, and violent murder at industrial scales.
Israeli police began investigating Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for fraud in 2016. Israeli courts indicted him for multiple cases of fraud in 2019.
That's not what this article says. To quote:
> Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.
> Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
> Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.
You are not understanding what the article is saying, because you're mixing up different Palestinians. Palestine has a left wing party, the Palestine Authority, and a right wing party, Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, recognizes the state of Israel and wants a two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian state. Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and wants to destroy it. Netanyahu is against the Palestinian Authority because he's more against giving legitimacy to Palestinian statehood than he's against war. He funded Hamas to delegitimize Abbas/Palestinian statehood/two-state solution/peace.
President Abbas has a PhD in holocaust denial.
Calling the PA left wing isn't accurate. It's also bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The PA was founded following years of hostility. Secret meetings held in Norway in 1993 between the PLO and Israel led to the signing of the historic Declaration of Principles (the Oslo Accords), in which the two sides agreed to mutual recognition and terms whereby governing functions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967—would be progressively handed over to a Palestinian council."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority
PA is controlled by Fatah, which is "centre-left" to "left-wing" per Wikipedia. If you disagree, edit Wikipedia and cite your sources.
Iran’s Shah, prior to Khomeni was a brutal dictator propped up by the west. Of course he got on with Israel.
The truth stings.
The difference isn't in brutality. It is in the word "Islamic". That is the core of the ideological hostility of the current Iranian government towards Israel.
Or any people, for that matter.
Regardless of the above, the Islamic Republic of Iran calls itself Islamic and takes the velayat-e-faqih system, developed by Khomeini, as divinely inspired.
You just admitted that the specific system of ayatollah rule has 'no core doctrine' supporting it. You acknowledged that this particular form of clerical authority is an innovation that doesn't exist in foundational Islamic teachings. Then you say Khomeini 'developed' velayat-e-faqih as a new system.
So by your own admission: core Islamic doctrine doesn't support this specific form of clerical rule by ayatollahs; and that Khomeini had to 'develop' (i.e., invent) the velayat-e-faqih framework. So, Iran's system is based on this modern Shia innovation, not established Islamic governance models.
But your original claim was that Iran's hostility toward Israel stems from 'Islamic' ideological doctrine. You can't have it both ways, either Iran's policies flow from broadly accepted Islamic teachings, or they flow from Khomeini's specific 20th-century innovation that most Muslims reject.
You've just proven that Iran's system represents one minority sect's modern political invention, not mainstream Islamic doctrine.
You don't need to be an Islamic scholar to know there are two major branches: Sunni and Shia. If you don't know this basic distinction, you shouldn't be making claims about 'Islam' generally. If you do know it, then you're being disingenuous trying to pass off one minority Shia innovation as representative of all Islam.
a) considers itself Islamic, b) it is indeed ruled by scholars of Islam, c) bases its policy and politics on Islam.
You say that they are basically heretics and that the majority of Muslims don't agree with them. So what. I haven't said that all Muslims want to destroy Israel for religious reasons.
If I want to be extra precise, the Islamic Republic of Iran is compelled by Islam as of its own understanding to destroy Israel.
And given that there is no central authority in Islam that would issue binding declarations on what is Islam and what is Heresy, this is basically the norm in the Islamic world. Every nation and community practices Islam as it understands it, which means quite a lot of internal diversity.
Your new claim: Iran follows 'Islam as of its own understanding' and there's no central authority to define what's Islamic.
So you've just admitted that Iran's version isn't representative of Islam generally and that there's no authoritative way to call their interpretation 'Islamic'. That every community 'practices Islam as it understands it'.
This demolishes your original point even further. If anyone can interpret Islam however they want with no central authority, then Iran's actions tell us nothing about 'Islamic' doctrine, they only tell us about Iran's political choices wrapped in religious language.
By your own logic, I could point to: Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, which is democratic and has peaceful relations with Israel. Or the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, who've normalized relations with Israel. Jordan, Egypt: these have peace treaties with Israel.
I could point to these and say they represent 'Islam as of their own understanding' just as validly as Iran does.
You've essentially argued that Iran's interpretation is just one of many possible interpretations with no special claim to authenticity. That's the opposite of your original claim that Iran's hostility flows from Islamic doctrine.
You started by claiming Iran represents Islamic teaching. Now you're saying every Muslim community makes up their own version. Pick one: you can't have both.
And you still haven't provided a single citation of actual Islamic doctrine supporting violence against Jews, which was the original challenge.
You are engaging in an elaborate No True Scotsman fallacy.
For me, if if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and I will consider the Islamic Republic of Iran to be Islamic. I don't particularly care about sectarian squabbles what is geniunely Islamic or not.
You've retreated to "if it calls itself Islamic, it's Islamic," like claiming North Korea represents democracy because "Democratic" is in its name.
When you stated "There is no version of Islam that would be representative of Islam generally," you contradict Islamic tradition itself. The Prophet Muhammad, the FOUNDER of the religion said: "My community will never agree upon error" and "Allah's hand is with the congregation" (Source: Tirmidhi). This hadith establishes that consensus (ijma) of the Muslim community is authoritative in Islam.
Look, these facts remain: you admitted Iran's system is Khomeini's modern innovation. Most Muslim nations have peaceful relations with Israel. And you've cited zero Islamic doctrines supporting your claim.
This isn't about religion: it's politics in religious clothing. If Iran's position were truly Islamic, 1.8 billion Muslims would share it. They don't.
Stop conflating one country's politics with an entire faith.
No true Scotsman.
> Third, you preemptively accuse me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're the one committing it. You claim "perpetrators of Islamic violence" cite these doctrines, but when pressed for specifics, you can't name them. That's you implying that a Muslim who doesn't commit violence isn't following the "real" Islam, which is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy you're projecting onto me.
I didn’t need to do that. You say you’re an Islamic scholar so you should already be aware of this. I shouldn’t be needing to do research for you.
And you still haven’t defended my original accusation that you repeatedly stated that followers of Islamic violence are somehow un-Islamic - this is a textbook no true Scotsman.
> That's you implying that a Muslim who doesn't commit violence isn't following the "real" Islam
No it isn’t. Many Muslims do not commit violence although Islam itself states it is a violent belief system. Most Christians eat shellfish.
You have not demonstrated how you have brought any evidence that Islam calls for unrestricted violence against Jews or any people.
Here is a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44351856
You specifically asked me to put up or shut up and I put up and then you got very angry about it. Surely you must remember?
Are you aware of what the term "unrestricted violence" means?
Do you think that Jews are able to behave without impunity, and if the Muslims have cause to retaliate against them, that means that Islam sanctions unrestricted violence against Jews?
I believe anyone is allowed to behave as they reasonably want, including pointing out all the illness Islam has borne onto the world, for Muslims, for Jews, for Christians, for women, for journalists, for intellectuals and for everyone else.
And you still haven’t responded to the original accusation of no true Scotsman.
> And you still haven’t responded to the original accusation of no true Scotsman.
I've already rebutted that, you only returned with an ipse dixit to say "no but actually Islam is really violent." What we're discussing here is towards deconstructing that point, so also rendering the claim of no true scotsman a moot point (doubly so).
Because you will never be able to make the leap from "Islam allows for violence in limited cases, such as cases of persecution and self defense" to "Islam is violent," without bastardizing disengenuity.
Also, you are quite the hypocrite aren't you? You repeatedly press me to respond to points (even after I responded to them), yet there is a multitude of points of mine that you left unaddressed, even stating that you're going to ignore them, giving me triple (clearly emotionally charged ragequitting) goodbyes, and then coming back to spew more garbage.
Is that why you slid away from the other thread to this one, so people who do not catch that thread do not see your manifest impotencies?
finally, you’ve responded to the point. This isn’t in the text and is your own personal reading. But at least you’ve acknowledged it exists unlike previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839
> I've already rebutted that
No you haven’t rebutted either example of me pointing out your 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839 you just wrote 'no u' - that's 'tu quoque', another logical fallacy.
If it’s unclear, I am not stating Islam is only violent because the text is violent. I think you might be trying to refute a point I’m not making. There were many reasons why Islam is violent. What do you think causes Islamic violence?
> Is that why you slid away from the other thread to this one
You insult people like a medieval wizard.
Did I forget to read one of your posts on the other thread? I’m sorry, I clearly missed out.
I’m on this thread reminding you of a second instance of you using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Here is a link to remind you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44372664
Since you claim my interpretation about a 'minority of Jews' is "personal reading not found in the text," let me provide you with the actual scholarship you're apparently incapable of conducting yourself:
The Prophet (ṣ) said: "The Dajjal (false Messiah) would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls" (Sahih Muslim 2944): this is the exact hadith text, not my "personal reading." Seventy thousand Jews from one city constitutes what exactly, if not a minority of world Jewry?
You think you can analyze Islamic eschatology based on one isolated hadith while remaining completely ignorant of the broader literature. The Prophet (ṣ) said: 'The Dajjal will appear at the end of time when religion is taken lightly' (Sunan Ibn Majah 4067); meaning everything about about the Dajjal and his followers is explicitly END-TIMES prophecy, not prescriptive commands for daily Muslim behavior. Not my 'personal reading', this is only basic Islamic eschatology.
The same Prophet (ṣ) said: "Nothing between the creation of Adam until the establishment of the Hour is a greater tribulation than the affair of the False Messiah" (Sahih Muslim 2946); meaning his followers, including these Jews, are portrayed as bringing the ultimate tribulation and persecution to humanity, not being victims themselves.
The hadith literature is explicit about the Dajjal's persecution. The Prophet (ṣ) said: "Verily, preceding the False Messiah will be years of deception, in which the truthful are belied, the liars are believed, the trustworthy are discredited, the treacherous are trusted, and the disgraceful speak" (Musnad Ahmad 13298). He also said: "The people will flee from the False Messiah into the mountains" (Sahih Muslim 2945), describing Muslims fleeing persecution, not initiating it.
You desperately claim victory because I acknowledged a hadith exists: something I never denied. You think that the acknowledgement of a hadith is akin to acknowledgement of your faulty interpretation. How stupid, Mr. Non Sequitor!
Your sophisticated theological analysis amounts to: 'I found one hadith mentioning future conflict, therefore Islam is violent'; while remaining completely ignorant of the context, the broader literature, and the specific circumstances described. This is like reading one sentence from Revelation about Armageddon and declaring Christianity inherently violent.
Now you are moving your goalposts with your retreat to 'there are many reasons Islam is violent' without specifying any. When challenged on logical fallacies, you ignore the rebuttals. When asked about contradictory historical evidence (link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350839), you promise a flailing disengagement which you are unable to adhere because of how thoroughly emotionally rattled you are by having your ignorant bigotry challenged.
Is this really the intellectual standard you want to defend? Because at this point, watching you flail around these basic logical contradictions is starting to feel less like a debate and more like intellectual charity work.
Better to insult like a medieval wizard than think like a modern idiot. Keep it up, I am truly enjoying this and want to see how inexhaustible is your faulty thinking and how much contradictory emotional fuel is behind your promise to stop speaking to me.
Seems like it's not just Islam that lives rent free in your head, but now this Muslim is too.
No. You asked for a hadith which was calling for violence as if you didn’t know that one existed and then were provided with one.
> one isolated hadith
Yes. You asked for one. I didn’t have to provide you with one but I gave you one anyway. You haven’t even thanked me yet.
> something I never denied
You called it a string of gobbledygook, even though it has since been realised that you know exactly what it was referring to.
> Now you are moving your goalposts with your retreat to 'there are many reasons Islam is violent' without specifying any.
There were no goal posts - I never limited the reasons that Islam is violent. In fact, I asked you to come up with your reasons why Islam is violent, and you have not provided any.
> Umar ibn al-Khattab
You really think this is contradictory historical evidence? If you’re wondering why I think he made Jewish people second class citizens rather than slaughtering them I’m presuming it’s because he liked money from overtaxation. Why do you think he made Jewish people second-class citizens, rather than slaughtering them?
> Better to insult like a medieval wizard than think like a modern idiot.
Really? Because you stopped communicating that way, which makes me feel that you’re a little bit self-conscious about it.
And yes: two no true Scotsmans still undefended.
You aren't responding to the fact that you're committing the composition fallacy: taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent." You never addressed this fundamental logical flaw in your argument because you know you can't defend it.
You keep claiming I'm committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're misapplying it. When I said Iran's actions are "politics in religious clothing" rather than true Islamic doctrine, I wasn't redefining Islam to exclude counterexamples: I was making an evidential argument. I challenged OP to provide Islamic doctrinal support for Iran's positions and he didn't. I pointed to empirical evidence: the fact that 1.8 billion Muslims don't share Iran's position. I was distinguishing between political claims and religious doctrine based on evidence, not making arbitrary exclusions.
The key difference is: No True Scotsman would be "Iran isn't really Islamic" (circular reasoning), but my argument was "Iran's actions aren't supported by Islamic doctrine" (evidential claim requiring proof). OP failed to provide the doctrinal evidence I requested, making this a substantive claim requiring evidence, not an arbitrary exclusion.
Now, let's address your contradictory positions. In our previous thread, when I demanded citations, you wrote:
"I understand you want me to cite specific hadiths, as I said earlier I think any Islamic scholar would already know which ones" and "You have no right to demand anything from me." Now you're acting wounded that I haven't "thanked" you for providing a hadith reference. If I "already know" these hadiths as you claimed, why would I thank you for telling me something I supposedly already knew? And why are you demanding gratitude for amateur citation while completely ignoring the multiple hadiths I provided with proper scholarly context? Quite clownish.
Second, you're conflating citation with interpretation. You pointed to a hadith: congratulations, you can use Google! But when I provided you with proper context, multiple supporting hadiths, and explained the distinction between eschatological prophecy and prescriptive religious practice, you called it "gobbledygook" and fled the discussion. Citing a text isn't the same as defending an interpretation of it, which you've never done.
Third, your claim that I "never denied" the hadith exists is another deflection. The question was always about your interpretation of what it means. You think pointing to end-times prophecy about a minority of Jews following the false Messiah somehow proves "Islam calls for unrestricted violence against Jews." I systematically dismantled that interpretation with proper textual context, which you aren't addressing, because you simply can't.
Fourth, you accuse me of "moving goalposts" when you're the one who abandoned your original argument. You affirmed that Islamic doctrine calls for unrestricted violence against Jews, I challenged you to explain why Muhammad's direct companion Umar ibn al-Khattab invited Jews back to Jerusalem after 500 years of Christian expulsion, and you've never answered. Instead, you're now retreating to vague claims about "many reasons Islam is violent" without specifying any.
In fact your Umar ibn al-Khattab deflection proves you don't understand the example. You mention him as if it supports your position, but Umar's protection of Jews directly contradicts your claim that Islam mandates violence against them. You're citing evidence against your own argument. If what you say is true, he would not have invited them back to Jerusalem, and he would slaughter them in any case.
It's very clear that when pressed for basic rigor, you flee to different threads hoping people won't notice your contradictions. You promised to stop communicating with me multiple times but keep returning because you are lathered in the discomfort from being so absolutely deconstructed.
What we have here is your inability to defend the interpretations you're making from the citations you provide.
That's the difference between scholarship and propaganda.
Yes, I am. To make it simpler, I’ll use your analogy: you asked me for a car with a red door and I provided one. Even though you say you are a scholar of cars and are aware that there are many instances of cars have red doors. Furthermore, you did not thank me.
The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see.
I never asked you to prove Islam has violent elements. I challenged your affirmation that Islam mandates unrestricted violence against Jews. You showed one end-times hadith about a minority and declared victory.
Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human (which is doubtful, since you're behaving more like a broken bot at this point). One red door doesn't make the entire car red.
You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them?
Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion?
Citation without interpretation isn't scholarship: it's Google, but in your case it's more like Altavista.
As opposed to the classic sincere deception.
> Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human
No - as discussed earlier, not every follower of Islam is individually violent, like not every human is violent.
> You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them?
I answered this earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381029
> Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion?
I answered that earlier too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44373946
I previously asked you what your own thoughts are regarding why Islam is violent, you didn’t answer. Your most recent post seems to indicate that you don’t think Islam is violent at all. What is your own explanation for the widespread worldwide occurrence of Islamic violence, if Islam itself is not violent?
1. "As opposed to the classic sincere deception."
Cute wordplay, but you're still avoiding the substance. Your disingenuous behavior includes but is not limited to: misrepresenting my arguments, claiming you "answered" questions you dodged, and shifting burden of proof when cornered.
2. "No as discussed earlier, not every follower of Islam is individually violent, like not every human is violent."
This actually destroys your argument. You've been claiming Islam mandates unrestricted violence against Jews, but now admit not every Muslim enacts this supposed mandate. Your own logic proves that either:
A) The doctrine doesn't actually mandate what you claim, OR
B) 1.8 billion Muslims are failing to follow their own religion
If you choose option B, you're committing the exact No True Scotsman fallacy you've been accusing me of: redefining 'true Islam' to exclude the vast majority of Muslims who don't commit this supposed mandated violence.
3. Your "I already answered" evasions
You claim you answered the Umar ibn al-Khattab question by saying he "liked money from overtaxation."
If Islamic doctrine truly mandated unrestricted violence against Jews, then Umar, a direct companion of the Prophet and one of the most revered figures in Islamic history, would be religiously obligated to follow it. Instead, he went OUT OF HIS WAY to invite Jews back to Jerusalem after 500 years of Christian expulsion.
Your 'tax money' explanation is incorrect on multiple levels:
First, Jerusalem already contained Christians who vastly outnumbered Jews across the Middle East. Umar had no economic need to invite back a tiny Jewish minority when he already had a much larger Christian tax base.
Second, your "overtaxation" claim is historically false. The dhimmi system wasn't exploitation, it was a social contract. The actual jizya rates under Umar demonstrate this clearly:
The jizya was structured as a modest, graduated tax based on ability to pay:
The wealthy paid 4 dirhams annually
The middle class paid 2 dirhams annually
The working poor paid only 1 dirham annually
In regions using gold currency, it was 4 dinars per year
In silver currency regions, it was 40 dirhams per year
These amounts represented reasonable, graduated taxation rather than exploitation. This wasn't "overtaxation" by any historical standard.
Medieval European serfs typically paid far higher proportions of their income in various taxes and obligations to feudal lords.
Non-Muslims paid jizya in exchange for:
A. Military protection by Islamic forces
B. Exemption from military service (only Muslims were required to enlist)
C. Legal protection and religious autonomy
D. Integration into the economic system
The rates were deliberately affordable and often collected in goods rather than currency when cash wasn't available. This was a protection arrangement, not exploitation.
If Islam truly mandated violence against Jews, why would Umar create a system specifically designed to protect them from violence while exempting them from military obligations at such reasonable rates?
He showed deliberate favor to Jews when he had zero obligation to do so, implementing a tax system that was proportional, fair, and designed for long-term coexistence rather than exploitation.
This demonstrates what Islamic governance actually looks like according to someone who learned directly from Muhammad. Your interpretation would make one of Islam's most celebrated figures a religious failure.
Similarly, your claim that you "answered" why 1.8 billion Muslims haven't enacted this violence is circular reasoning that assumes your conclusion.
4. Your massive burden shifting attempt: "What is your own explanation for the widespread worldwide occurrence of Islamic violence, if Islam itself is not violent?"
More examples of textbook circular reasoning. You're asking me to explain "Islamic violence" as if its existence as a distinct category is proven fact. I could equally demand you explain "Christian violence" (Crusades, Inquisition, Northern Ireland), "Buddhist violence" (Myanmar), "Hindu violence" (Kashmir), or "atheist violence" (Stalin, Mao).
The question isn't why violence exists. Humans commit violence for political, economic, territorial, and tribal reasons regardless of religion. The question is whether Islam uniquely mandates it.
5. "Your most recent post seems to indicate that you don't think Islam is violent at all."
False, and a strawman. I never said Islam contains zero provisions for violence. I said you cannot prove it mandates UNRESTRICTED violence against Jews specifically. There's a massive difference between acknowledging that Islam allows for violence in limited circumstances such as persecution and self-defense (true of most legal and religious systems) and your specific claim about doctrinal mandates for unrestricted violence.
6. The core issues you keep avoiding:
After all these posts, you still have:
ONE end-times hadith about a minority of Jews in eschatological prophecy
ZERO prescriptive commands for present-day Muslims
ZERO explanation beyond unfounded speculation which I have rebutted for why Muhammad's companions protected Jews
ZERO response to the contextual hadiths I provided showing Muslims fleeing persecution
ZERO engagement with the distinction between prophecy and religious law
7. Your fundamental logical fallacy which is still unaddressed
You found ONE eschatological hadith about end-times and declared it proves Islam mandates present day violence.
By your exact logic:
Christianity mandates violence because Revelation describes end-times warfare
America mandates violence because our military exists
Humans mandate violence because we have the capacity for it
Defend this composition fallacy or abandon your argument. You cannot keep dodging this fundamental flaw. Well you can keep dodging it, which you will because you have no response, but we all see what you're doing.
Here's your choice, no more deflections:
Either:
A) Admit you cannot distinguish between eschatological prophecy and prescriptive religious law, making your entire argument invalid,
OR
B) Provide actual prescriptive Islamic doctrine commanding present-day unrestricted violence against Jews (which doesn't exist).
Name ONE verse or hadith that commands present day Muslims to commit unrestricted violence against Jews.
You claim to be citing Islamic doctrine, prove it, or concede the point.
Your inability to do this after so many bankrupt posts while making increasingly desperate deflections speaks volumes about the strength of your position.
The inability to properly respond is your concession.
Stop imagining. Cite them.
What specific verses or doctrines are you referring to? Give us the exact citations.
Because once you do, I have a very simple question for you: If those verses mean what you think they mean, why didn't Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam and Muhammad's direct companion, know about them?
When Umar took Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638 CE, instead of slaughtering Jews, he invited them back to a city they'd been banned from for 500 years under Christian rule. He protected their religious practices and established legal frameworks for their protection.
So either:
These verses don't exist or don't mean what you think, OR the second Caliph, who learned Islam directly from Muhammad, somehow didn't understand basic Islamic doctrine.
Which is it?
Put up or shut up. Cite the specific verses you're claiming exist, then explain why Muhammad's direct successor acted in the exact opposite way.
I have lived the last 44 years in Australia, the United Kingdom and now the United States, each of which have been victims of Islamic violence in different ways.
I understand you want me to cite specific hadiths, as I said earlier I think any Islamic scholar would already know which ones, so you’re not arguing in good faith. I want you to know I am familiar with the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy and feel you will employ it. You have no right to demand anything from me.
As an Islamic scholar you are also familiar with the concept of dhimmis. I think the reason you didn’t mention them here is because you know Islam creating laws to treat others as second class citizens is shameful, and you did now acknowledge these because you are not arguing in good faith.
I won’t stop talking about Islamic violence because you demand I do so, you have no right to demand this of anyone and your personal beliefs deserve no special respect.
First, you affirmed there are Islamic doctrines calling for violence against Jews. When I asked for citations, you suddenly can't provide any because "any Islamic scholar would already know." This is the intellectual equivalent of "my girlfriend goes to another school." If these doctrines are so obvious and pervasive, citing them should take you thirty seconds, not paragraphs of deflection.
Second, you accuse me of limiting the discussion when the exact opposite happened. You affirmed a specific claim about anti-Jewish doctrines, I challenged it, and when you couldn't defend it, YOU tried to escape by broadening it to "Islamic violence globally." I actually expanded my challenge by saying I haven't found doctrines calling for unrestricted violence against Jewish people "or any people, for that matter." You're now misrepresenting the exchange because you can't handle either version of the challenge.
Third, you preemptively accuse me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're the one committing it. You claim "perpetrators of Islamic violence" cite these doctrines, but when pressed for specifics, you can't name them. That's you implying that a Muslim who doesn't commit violence isn't following the "real" Islam, which is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy you're projecting onto me.
Fourth, you brought up dhimmis thinking it was devastating, but you just wrecked your own position. The dhimmi system was a legal framework for protection and coexistence, revolutionary for its time when other civilizations were practicing actual genocide. If Islam mandated killing Jews, why would it simultaneously create detailed legal protections for them? You literally cited evidence that contradicts your entire premise.
Fifth, your appeal to personal geography is irrelevant. Living in three countries doesn't make you knowledgable in Islam any more than living near hospitals makes you qualified to comment on surgery. You're using personal experience to avoid rigor, the exact opposite of truthful discourse.
Sixth, you claim I have "no right to demand" citations from you. In discussions in pursuit of truth, when you make factual claims, providing evidence isn't a courtesy, it's basic intellectual honesty. You don't get to make assertions about Islamic doctrine then hide behind wounded feelings when asked to support them.
Finally, you still haven't addressed Umar ibn al-Khattab. This isn't some minor historical figure, he's the second Caliph, Muhammad's direct companion, who conquered Jerusalem and immediately invited Jews back after 500 years of Christian expulsion. If Islamic doctrine mandates violence against Jews, then either:
a) these doctrines don't exist or don't mean what you claim, OR b) Muhammad's own companion fundamentally misunderstood basic Islamic teaching (which you seem to be more privvy to, despite your lack of citation)
You cannot escape this logical knot you've tied around yourself. Every byte of text you write avoiding this question proves you know your position is indefensible.
This isn't about silencing you, it's about holding you accountable for claims you cannot substantiate.
Edit: actually wait, I’m gonna come back for five seconds to voice dictate that I previously discussed calls for violence from Islam against everyone, rather than specifically Jews, in the first sentence of the reply that you didn’t seem to have read, but there’s your example for Jews, and your moment of shame on either being not an Islamic scholar or having been exposed to have lied. Which again we both know is permissible under Islam for the purposes of furthering Islam. Goodbye to you and your terrible beliefs.
Edit 2: I made no reference to my own personal geography rather than lived experience of Islamic violence. That you would miss characterise one for the other reveals the same thing about you and your terrible beliefs as your mischaracterisation of a system that treated Jews second class citizens. Now begone with your nonsense.
I wouldn't even dare to say this is the writing level of a kindergartner, because that would be an insult to kindergartners. So flee you fool, Adieu.
P.S.: The multiple desperate edits after saying 'goodbye' twice really sell the whole 'I've demolished your argument' claim. Classic.
P.P.S.: Funny how someone who 'stopped reading at the first sentence' managed to respond to points from my fifth paragraph. Even your lies are lazy.
It’s enough for our audience to Google and expose you either about being an Islamic scholar or lying about Islam not calling for violence, yet again.
But I can and I did. You read it, remember?
Bravo! How do the mirrors you look into withstand such a face?
One can’t be bigoted towards ideas. You claimed to be an Islamic scholar, now you don’t seem to know what Islam is.
This is what is called a wolf in sheep's clothing.
For example, these ayatollahs, who have forgotten more about islam than any muslim I've ever discussed with has ever known, claim that women who refuse to cover up (it was really more burning hijabs and demonstrating) can't be executed according to islamic doctrine for that, if they were young and virgins. Sounds great.
Except what they decided what this "islamic doctrine" meant was to have them raped repeatedly by soldiers ... and THEN execute them. Virgin problem solved.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security...
Oh here is the list of credentials of khamenei, the person in charge of that. But let me guess, you "know better" and "know" this somehow isn't islam. Of course, you aren't willing to do anything about it either ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
Some highlights:
"Khamenei's education began at the age of four, by learning the Quran at Maktab;[7] he spent his basic and advanced levels of seminary studies at the hawza of Mashhad, under mentors such as Sheikh Hashem Qazvini and Ayatollah Milani. Then, he went to Najaf in 1957,[26] but soon returned to Mashhad due to his father's unwillingness to let him stay there. In 1958, he settled in Qom where he attended the classes of Seyyed Hossein Borujerdi and Ruhollah Khomeini.[7]"
You say that Muhammad 'used peace treaties as weapons of war, against Jews', but the historical record shows the complete opposite, and the full story makes your accusation look absurd.
The Banu Qurayza violated the Treaty of Medina during wartime, which was considered an act of treason in violation of the constitution agreed by all citizens of Medina, including the Banu Qurayza Jews.¹
They broke their treaty obligations by conspiring with attacking forces during the siege of Medina.
But here's the part that completely destroys your narrative: *The Banu Qurayza themselves appointed Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as their judge, and declared they would agree with whatever was his verdict.*²
They chose their own judge: Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who was from the Aws tribe and had been their ally.
And the judgment? *The verdict for the Banu Qurayza was consistent with the Old Testament, specifically based on Deuteronomy 20:12-14.*³ Sa'd judged them to execution according to Jewish law, not Islamic law.
So let me get this straight: The Jews broke the treaty, they requested to be judged by their own ally, that ally judged them according to their own Torah, and somehow this becomes Muhammad "using peace treaties as weapons against Jews"?
This is the exact opposite of what you claimed. The Jews broke the treaty, chose their own judge, and were judged by their own law.
If someone gets such a well-documented historical event completely backwards while making inflammatory accusations, that tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of their other claims.
1. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford University Press, 1956). Fred Donner, Muhammad and the Believers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)
2. William Muir, The Life of Mahomet (Smith, Elder & Co., 1861), Vol. 3, Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955).
3. Deuteronomy 20:12-14 (Hebrew Bible); Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews (Vikas Publishing, 1979).
I am pretty sure Iran's current regime wins the brutal dictatorship game
The Federation of American Scientists reported their torture methods included:
"electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails".
It’s very clear to me Israel has had some of the most retarded foreign policy experts for decades now. The truth is the same truth we have in the U.S, 70+ million that voted for Trump harbor a higher degree of racism that is near impossible to stop (will take generations). Israelis HATE Palestinians, and therefore they cannot make even the most obvious game theory choices on building better safety environments (finance and launch a multi decade campaign to uplift Gaza from poverty of mind, heart, and material - unless you are fucking racist and would rather live in conflict than EVER give an inch.)
Well, it's outcome of how they were treated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
If everybody hates you anyways you eventually morph into the thing that deserves that hatred.
Are you even arguing in good faith? Over the years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q