The Student Room Group

Oldham Muslims plan to kill Manchester Jews

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
Original post by Elipsis
You and your fellow cult members will always find reasons to attack us in the West. It's nothing to do with occupation of Muslim lands at all. There are plenty of countries we have invaded that are filled with Buddhists and Christians and they don't reach for the vest, do they? It's your so called holy book's fault. The internet really let the cat out of the bag. Now all Muslims have access to interpretations that were previously suppressed, and a certain percentage are always going to be brainwashed enough to think "yeah, i'm gonna go claim my higher place in heaven. Allah Akbah - boom!" Almost all of the civilians who die in so-called Muslim lands die at the hands of your brothers and sisters any way.

I could predict this fanatical response from you before I even clicked on your quote. Says a lot. :wink:
Reply 101
Original post by Perseveranze
Rat_Bag

So the Islamic wars and conquests of the Levant, North Africa, and Spain, they were all haram, and should not have happened?
Who took the law into their own hands here?


The Muslim imperialists.

So were these wars and conquests haram, and should not have taken place?
Original post by Rat_Bag
The Muslim imperialists.

So were these wars and conquests haram, and should not have taken place?


Ok, which laws is this in accordance to? Which random Muslim, without a Caliphate, took the law into their own hands and randomly conquered different countries and conquered them?

If we can establish this, we can see where it would be permissible for a random person to take the law into their own hands and kill someone anywhere.

Of course not, many of those places conquered, the people wanted the invasion (Al Andalus, Syria, Jerueselum etc.), and every place conquered saw progress of civilization (Pagan Africa vs North Africa for example). The only questionable conquest in Islamic history is the later conquest of India (not Sindh).
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 103
Original post by Perseveranze
Ok, which laws is this in accordance to? Which random Muslim, without a Caliphate, took the law into their own hands and randomly conquered different countries and conquered them?

If we can establish this, we can see where it would be permissible for a random person to take the law into their own hands and kill someone anywhere.

Of course not, many of those places conquered, the people wanted the invasion (Al Andalus, Syria, Jerueselum etc.), and every place conquered saw progress of civilization (Pagan Africa vs North Africa for example). The only questionable conquest in Islamic history is the later conquest of India (not Sindh).


But you said "Muslims aren't allowed to fight for stuff like "nationalism" and "patriotism". You're only really allowed to fight against oppression (whether it's against your religion, yourselves, someone else)."

You've just admitted that this was not the case in the Levant, North Africa and Spain. If Muslim can only fight against oppression, then what were they doing starting wars in the Levant, North Africa and Spain?
Original post by Rat_Bag
But you said "Muslims aren't allowed to fight for stuff like "nationalism" and "patriotism". You're only really allowed to fight against oppression (whether it's against your religion, yourselves, someone else)."

You've just admitted that this was not the case in the Levant, North Africa and Spain. If Muslim can only fight against oppression, then what were they doing starting wars in the Levant, North Africa and Spain?


Firstly, get the fact right; Al Andalus = Spain.

Secondly, Levant? Are you talking about the ME? Yeah, that was mostly Syria/Palastine, both of which the inahabitants wanted the Muslims to invade. The people of Al Sham have certainly been praised.

Thirdly, I never said the only reason you're allowed to fight for is "oppression". There's three reasons we're allowed to fight in, the reasons include removing oppression, defending the weak and implementing the justice of Islam. Which is exactly what happened in every invasion.

For example, John of Nikiou in 690 CE, who was a Coptic Bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), states;


“When Muslims saw the…hostility of the people to the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt…people began to help the Muslims.” - John of Nikiou, quoted by Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Egypt in the Byzantine World, Cambridge, 2007, P. 442.

You can read it all here.
Reply 105
Original post by Perseveranze
Firstly, get the fact right; Al Andalus = Spain.


Yes, they are both the names for the same place, we can use either. Just like we can use the terms Israel and Palestine to denote an area (the "Holy Land") quite interchangeably. I prefer the term Palestine, as I prefer the term Spain. Since you prefer the term used by the occupiers, in this case Al Andalus, do you also prefer to use the term Israel?

Original post by Perseveranze
Secondly, Levant? Are you talking about the ME? Yeah, that was mostly Syria/Palastine, both of which the inahabitants wanted the Muslims to invade. The people of Al Sham have certainly been praised.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just how the Iraqis wanted the Americans to invade. Nice joke. All I need to do now is look up that camel joke by Al Shabab, and that's me done.

Original post by Perseveranze

Thirdly, I never said the only reason you're allowed to fight for is "oppression".


Erm, sorry Mister, but the reason I was calling you up on this is because you said, in this very thread "Muslims aren't allowed to fight for stuff like "nationalism" and "patriotism". You're only really allowed to fight against oppression (whether it's against your religion, yourselves, someone else)." So if you now believe there are other reason, why did you write this which I just quoted?

Original post by Perseveranze

There's three reasons we're allowed to fight in, the reasons include removing oppression, defending the weak and implementing the justice of Islam. Which is exactly what happened in every invasion.


So are you still standing by your stance that "there was little reason" for Muslims to fight in the war against the Nazis?

You know, whenever Fox News is running its stuff about the righteousness of the Iraq war, it's all about removing oppression, defending the weak, and implementing the justice of freedom and democracy. It's like they're taking a leaf out of the Muslims' book.

Original post by Perseveranze

For example, John of Nikiou in 690 CE, who was a Coptic Bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), states;


“When Muslims saw the…hostility of the people to the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt…people began to help the Muslims.” - John of Nikiou, quoted by Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Egypt in the Byzantine World, Cambridge, 2007, P. 442.

You can read it all here.


So was he a "sell out", or a "supporter"?

Do you want quotes by prominent Iraqis, both religious and secular, with all their pleading for the Americans to come and save them, and all their praise once the Americans got there?
Original post by Rat_Bag
Yes, they are both the names for the same place, we can use either. Just like we can use the terms Israel and Palestine to denote an area (the "Holy Land") quite interchangeably. I prefer the term Palestine, as I prefer the term Spain. Since you prefer the term used by the occupiers, in this case Al Andalus, do you also prefer to use the term Israel?


Oh look at this, you can't admit you thought Al Andalus was something else.

Typically your ego must've got hurt.

Original post by Rat_Bag
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just how the Iraqis wanted the Americans to invade. Nice joke. All I need to do now is look up that camel joke by Al Shabab, and that's me done.


And this is where the debate ends, because it's wasting my time.

Firstly - To correct you

You have no evidence that Iraqi's wanted America to invade. In truth, they did not. They did not want nearly a million deaths. They did not want, sectarian violence to shoot up.

Had the Iraqi's wanted America to invade, then so many people wouldn't be criticizing America for the invasion there.

Secondly - To put you in your place

When Muslims invaded Al Andalus (Spain) -


Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution. - Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.

When Muslims invaded Jerusalem;



The revolt ended with the departure of the Persians and an eventual massacre of the Jews in 629 by the Byzantines ending 15 years of Jewish autonomy. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were once again allowed to live and practice their religion with more freedom in Jerusalem, 8 years after their massacre by the Byzantines and nearly 500 years after their expulsion from Judea by the Roman Empire. - Gil 1997, pp. 70–71.



When Muslims invaded Syria. However, they heard the Romans were comming back with a huge army, so the Muslims had to regroup. This would mean that they could potentially lose or win, and if they lose, that means they have to give the Dhimmi's (Non-Muslims) all their tax money back. So before they leave, they give the Dhimmi's their tax money and this is their reply;



In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us” - Arnold, Preaching, p. 54.

And indeed, the Muslims did return and slapped the Roman's up.

And that's just a few examples of many. But the above should be enough to shut you up.


Original post by Rat_Bag

Do you want quotes by prominent Iraqis, both religious and secular, with all their pleading for the Americans to come and save them, and all their praise once the Americans got there?


Keep dreaming.

[video="youtube;Zo4R5lSahoc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4R5lSahoc[/video]

Anyways, it's clear you just wasted a lot of my time. You can't really debate, and instead are now arguing and making baseless statements like; "Iraq wanted USA to invade (even though there's no evidence to support this, not to mention that within just 5 months a poll suggested that most of the Iraqi's wanted America out)" which shows the desperation you've succumbed to.

I had a lot of PM's to reply to, but instead I wasted time on you. That is regretful.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 107
From Oldham to Iraq.
Killing any innocent person for no reason is not allowed in Islam if this OP is true then whoever is doing this is not muslim & have no connection with Islam.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Perseveranze

You have no evidence that Iraqi's wanted America to invade. In truth, they did not. They did not want nearly a million deaths. They did not want, sectarian violence to shoot up.

Had the Iraqi's wanted America to invade, then so many people wouldn't be criticizing America for the invasion there.

When Muslims invaded Al Andalus (Spain) -


Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution. - Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.

When Muslims invaded Jerusalem;


Keep dreaming.



He's right though. Muslims (on your basis illegally) invaded Christian Spain. So what if the Jews there supported this, the Jews were not the majority and so the majority opposed the Muslims, hence you got kicked out in the reconquista. The Catholics of France and Spain united and kicked you out, but of course This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel :wink: Please accept that Muslims have engaged in imperialist wars contrary to haram, or you obviously have some sort of anti-reality device and I can give up trying.

2) Your logic seems to be deteriorating. Support for the war will not and cannot correspond to postwar support as facts and the political landscape have changed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Postwar most Americans were for pullung out, previously most supported intervention, ergo you are making no sense logically. An a priori error is pretty basic dude, stop grasping at straws.
Reply 110
Original post by ak137
I could predict this fanatical response from you before I even clicked on your quote. Says a lot. :wink:


I could predict this unsatisfying dodge and non-response from you, says a lot :boring:
Reply 111
Original post by Elipsis
I could predict this unsatisfying dodge and non-response from you, says a lot :boring:


Yawwwwwn. Come up with something original. :yawn:
Reply 112
Original post by ak137
Yawwwwwn. Come up with something original. :yawn:


I could say the same thing to Mohammed :wink:
Original post by jaadau121
He said no such thing what he said was referring to the occupation of East Jerusalem, here on in refered to as Qods.

"'Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country...

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1510.htm


He said no such thing?

Yes he did. :smile:

"Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it."

"So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:

Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.

My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:

Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam."
Reply 114
The Persian word for map, is 'nagash', when used in the future tense, it is 'nagsheh'.

Neither of these words are in your so called source.

What was said is this:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."



Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from pages of history) mahv shavad (vanish from).

MEMRI is headed by none other than a former Israeli intelligence officer, so if my source had any bias it would be in favour of Israel.

Unlike most people on TSR, my Farsi is more than fluent, due to the fact my dad has a Persian background, so sorry but your sorry attempts to subject me to your pro-Israeli lies and propaganda will not work.

REMEMBER NAGASH/NAGSHEH=MAP, and neither of these words are in YOUR TRANSALTION from a poxy 'source' if you can call it that.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by jaadau121
The Persian word for map, is 'nagash', when used in the future tense, it is 'nagsheh'.

Neither of these words are in your so called source.

What was said is this:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."



Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from pages of history) mahv shavad (vanish from).

MEMRI is headed by none other than a former Israeli intelligence officer, so if my source had any bias it would be in favour of Israel.

Unlike most people on TSR, my Farsi is more than fluent, due to the fact my dad has a Persian background, so sorry but your sorry attempts to subject me to your pro-Israeli lies and propaganda will not work.

REMEMBER NAGASH/NAGSHEH=MAP, and neither of these words are in YOUR TRANSALTION from a poxy 'source' if you can call it that.


Ahmedinejad made his famous speech at the Interior Ministry on October 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole's.) The relevant portions read:

Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.

You evidently think that by "occupation," Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Israeli seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. But if this were true, it would not have been going on for "more than fifty years" now, would it? The 50th anniversary of 1967 falls in 2017, which is a while off. What could be clearer than that "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself?

As the Institute for Imam Khomeini itself has said, the remarks were:

Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.

(Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.)

This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."
Reply 116
Original post by Florrick
I passed my driving test in Prestwich. No don't be alarmed, it's an isolated incident, there is a Muslim Asian community that lives within the Jewish community in Prestwich and one that also neighbours it. They get along fine. You can see both shopping along in Tesco (Prestwich) without a fuss or even walking on the same street.


Anyway, I admire how they're a tight-knit community, like how you can see a couple of Jewish mothers taking care of a whole group of little Jewish school girls to walk across roads and go back to their homes safely. Reason why I see this because I've had to stop my car a few times because of it. :tongue:


Yeah, my friend lives in the mainly Asian area which is all I've seen hen I've been, I didn't even realise there was a Jewish community so nearby (I've only been a couple of times!). I'm sure it is isolated :smile: but it's still a scary thought what would've happened if they weren't caught.

Original post by prog2djent
Unfortunately we can't wish away what is written in holy books.

Only hundreds of years of education, economic and social devlopment, and enlightenment ... if you will, would change that


True, it was more of a passing comment than an actual desire to change the way religion is, I've given up hoping that people will learn to get along.
Reply 117
American transalation haha, you are funny aren't you.

By the way MEMRI is a hardcore pro Israeli organisation, enough said.

There was no mention of years nor was the word NAGSHEH mentioned, I see you have dodged this point.
Original post by jaadau121
American transalation haha, you are funny aren't you.

By the way MEMRI is a hardcore pro Israeli organisation, enough said.

There was no mention of years nor was the word NAGSHEH mentioned, I see you have dodged this point.


So you dismiss the source for being American despite the fact they are a native Persian speaker working for none other than the Tehran Bureau? Whether or not nagsheh was mentioned is besides the point. What was said was quoted above and it is quite clear.

I see you dodged by point on Ahmedinejad referring to the "50 year long" occupation despite the fact that the 50th anniversary does not fall until 2017, and that the "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself. Ahmedinejad believes the occupation started in 1948, not 1967. He is an inciter of genocide.
Reply 119
Original post by Perseveranze
Rat_Bag

Yes, they are both the names for the same place, we can use either. Just like we can use the terms Israel and Palestine to denote an area (the "Holy Land") quite interchangeably. I prefer the term Palestine, as I prefer the term Spain. Since you prefer the term used by the occupiers, in this case Al Andalus, do you also prefer to use the term Israel?


Oh look at this, you can't admit you thought Al Andalus was something else.


Where, in any of my posts, did I even suggest that Al Andalus was somewhere else? Please quote and provide appropriate commentary. Otherwise, it's obvious this is just another one of your legendary inventions.

Original post by Perseveranze

Typically your ego must've got hurt.


Oh, so this is where it's coming from? You had your ego suitably thrashed yesterday, and as usual, when you realise or feel something negative within yourself, your first action is to accuse and project it onto others (like your accusations of others not being able to debate, being intellectually deficient, when anybody can see, that you are saying these in response to your own demonstrable failure to debate and intellectual deficiencies). If it makes you feel better, you can go about this, like I've said before, am not going to stand in the way of your mental wellbeing.

Original post by Perseveranze
Rat_Bag

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just how the Iraqis wanted the Americans to invade. Nice joke. All I need to do now is look up that camel joke by Al Shabab, and that's me done.


And this is where the debate ends, because it's wasting my time.


Of course this is where the debate must end, and not for want of "wasting [your] time", or indeed any "inability to debate" or "intellectual deficiencies" on my part. The debate has to end, because you were not smart enough to see the beautiful checkmate that you set up for yourself, and that I was cruelly leading you into. As always happens, when you finally see the hole you've dug yourself (and in a cruel way, it's always somewhat enjoyable watching you obliviously digging it), you start inventing excuses and running away, mainly as a result of your pride, lack of humility and weak imaan.

Original post by Perseveranze

Firstly - To correct you

You have no evidence that Iraqi's wanted America to invade.


Just as you have no evidence that the Iberians, Levantines, and North Africans wanted the Arabs to invade. But for some reason, you believe they did.

Original post by Perseveranze

In truth, they did not. They did not want nearly a million deaths. They did not want, sectarian violence to shoot up.


I agree somewhat. Like you, I was totally against the Western imperialist invasion of Iraq, and believe the whole episode to be a crime. However, unlike you, I am consistent in my ethics, and rightly condemn the Arab imperialism in Spain, the Levant and North, something you fail to do.

However, like those occupied by the Arab imperialists, there were a minority of voices within Iraq that persistently drummed for the Americans to invade. Let's call them "sell outs" if you wish.

Original post by Perseveranze

Had the Iraqi's wanted America to invade, then so many people wouldn't be criticizing America for the invasion there.


So how do you square the many Spanish, Portuguese, Maltese, Sicilians critical of the Arabs' imperialism and colonialism on their lands, with your unshaken belief that the imperialism and colonialism was wanted there?

Of course you will find some Iberians and southern Europeans who lovingly praise the times of Arab occupation, but you also fine some Iraqis who lovingly praise the American occupation.

So you need to be consistent here. And you need to stop running away from a very pertinent debate.

Original post by Perseveranze

Secondly - To put you in your place

When Muslims invaded Al Andalus (Spain) -


Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution. - Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.


And? When the Americans planned and executed the occupation of Iraq, the Kurds welcomed them as liberators from Arab persecution, and indeed fought alongside the American soldiers. If you ever visit Iraq, and it's obvious you never have, you will probably have a fit at the sight of pictures of George Bush hanging in shops, restaurants and hotels in Dohuk, Hawler (Erbil), Silemani (Sulaymaniyah). Of course the Kurds are naturally "sell-outs".

This does not and should not translate to generalised "Iraqis wanting the Americans to invade", and indeed, does not justify the attack and occupation of a sovereign nation. If you can understand this basic principle, and have some humility to recognise and admit your inconsistency, then we might actually get somewhere here.

Original post by Perseveranze

When Muslims invaded Jerusalem;


The revolt ended with the departure of the Persians and an eventual massacre of the Jews in 629 by the Byzantines ending 15 years of Jewish autonomy. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were once again allowed to live and practice their religion with more freedom in Jerusalem, 8 years after their massacre by the Byzantines and nearly 500 years after their expulsion from Judea by the Roman Empire. - Gil 1997, pp. 70–71.


Since the American occupation of Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan has flourished and become the centre of the sense of Kurdish nationhood for the Kurdish communities and diaspora everywhere. Kurds live in peace and freedom, something they had not experienced for hundreds of years.

Does this justify the American occupation of Iraq? No it doesn't. Same applies for the Arab imperialists' occupation of Jerusalem.

Original post by Perseveranze



When Muslims invaded Syria. However, they heard the Romans were comming back with a huge army, so the Muslims had to regroup. This would mean that they could potentially lose or win, and if they lose, that means they have to give the Dhimmi's (Non-Muslims) all their tax money back. So before they leave, they give the Dhimmi's their tax money and this is their reply;


In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us - Arnold, Preaching, p. 54.

And indeed, the Muslims did return and slapped the Roman's up.

And that's just a few examples of many. But the above should be enough to shut you up.


What all the Christians said that? Really? This is just becoming a joke (that is, your lack of debating ability and inability to evaluate historical sources)

All your examples supporting Arab imperialism and colonialism, have been refuted by the demonstration of identical concepts as occuring in modern day Western imperialism. This should be enough to shut any normal person up, however your deep seated pride and lack of humility will no doubt prevent this from happening.

Original post by Perseveranze
Rat_Bag

Do you want quotes by prominent Iraqis, both religious and secular, with all their pleading for the Americans to come and save them, and all their praise once the Americans got there?


Keep dreaming.


So are you saying that there were no prominant Iraqis that begged for the Americans to invade, and indeed, still praise the American invasion and occupation? Yes or no?

Original post by Perseveranze

[video="youtube;Zo4R5lSahoc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4R5lSahoc[/video]


Do you understand what empirical evidence is?

As I've made clear, I, like you, opposed the American imperialists' invasion and occupation of Iraq. Where we part, is where you choose the path of inconsistency by condoning the Arab imperialsts' invasion and occupation of so many foreign and sovereign lands.

So if I run around Spain and Portugal with a camera asking people if they supported the Arab occupation of their land, and then edit the day's work by only showing people huffing and puffing about how awful it was, would that make you believe that the Iberians did not want the Arabs' to invade? I ask again, do you understand what empirical evidence is?

Original post by Perseveranze

Anyways, it's clear you just wasted a lot of my time.


Hardly. You've cut short the debate at the point it was getting juicy, and you were about to have to admit that you lied or couldn't be rationally consistent. I know it must be humiliating for you, and terribly painful for your ego, but don't worry, am sure there will still be some brainless Muslims on this forum that will still exhale "Mashallah" when you post some tripe and conjecture in multiple different colours, and will still see you as a symbol of the ummah's invincibility. However, for the sake of those with intelligence reading this thread, let's post again the bit of the post, that you feel so desperate to run away from.

Original post by Perseveranze
Rat_Bag

Thirdly, I never said the only reason you're allowed to fight for is "oppression".


Erm, sorry Mister, but the reason I was calling you up on this is because you said, in this very thread "Muslims aren't allowed to fight for stuff like "nationalism" and "patriotism". You're only really allowed to fight against oppression (whether it's against your religion, yourselves, someone else)." So if you now believe there are other reason, why did you write this which I just quoted?


Original post by Perseveranze
Rat_Bag

There's three reasons we're allowed to fight in, the reasons include removing oppression, defending the weak and implementing the justice of Islam. Which is exactly what happened in every invasion.

So are you still standing by your stance that "there was little reason" for Muslims to fight in the war against the Nazis?

You know, whenever Fox News is running its stuff about the righteousness of the Iraq war, it's all about removing oppression, defending the weak, and implementing the justice of freedom and democracy. It's like they're taking a leaf out of the Muslims' book.


Original post by Perseveranze

You can't really debate,


Sorry mate, but objectively speaking, and anybody observing this conversation, would say that applies to you, not me.

Original post by Perseveranze

and instead are now arguing and making baseless statements like; "Iraq wanted USA to invade (even though there's no evidence to support this, not to mention that within just 5 months a poll suggested that most of the Iraqi's wanted America out)" which shows the desperation you've succumbed to.


I didn't argue that Iraq wanted USA to invade. I said that this argument applies just as much to the Iraq context as it did to the Levantine/North Africa/Iberian context. A few people from those places welcoming and praising an invasion and occupation does not equate to the people of those people welcoming and praising the invasion. This is basic basic stuff, and am surprised that I am even having to say this.

And the poll you link is very valid.

Where is the poll of Iberians, North Africans and Levantines from the 7th century saying how much they wanted to be invaded, occupied and colonised by Arabs? Where is it?

Original post by Perseveranze

I had a lot of PM's to reply to, but instead I wasted time on you. That is regretful.


You and your excuses :smile:
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply