Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Minzerland]

I tried to explain the difference before, but apparently I lost the debate because I called out his strawman.

Want me to educate you again, Minzerland?

You never had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Versus_genocide

Either way, you are getting rid of the unwanted population in a specific land. You trying to deny it by confusing the meaning is yet another logical fallacy.

The excerpt proves me correct;
'Thus, these concepts are different, but related; "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people.'

I never said they weren't in relation; in fact, I link the two in a previous post.

You are confusing terminology and distinctions, twisting them when not applicable to suit a narrative you created.

It wasn't attacked, it was an inspection for illicit items. What you forget to mention is the fact that 40 of the passengers on the MV Mavi Marmara resisted and 9 activists died in the scuffle.

What you forgot to mention is that all of that happened in the international waters and even if they resisted, they were right to do so, because what happened was practically an act of piracy, and also the fact that these 9 were shot while they were supposed to be neutralized (but not killed), which in return was a result of a unit not suitable for melee combat.

Terrible understanding of international waters, international waters are 'Terra nullius' any state can exercise jurisdiction in international waters if a crime is suspected. The Israeli Government had information of a smuggling attempt aboard the ship; they were full within their right to do so.

This doesn't indicate a genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

None of these are applicable to the post I responded to because the Israeli Government hasn't intentionally started killing Palestinians in the way you've described.

[Free Rhenish States]

לק”י
Also, I have a question, what is the Islamic view of the Druze people specifically?

Some say they are Muslims.
Some say they are not.
And I've heard that the Druze people are patriots of whatever country they live in.
I don't have an exact opinion on that matter.

[The Northernmost Americas]

Have you ever read and tried to memorize the Bible, Torah or Quran?

Again. He had no need too memorize them in their entirety. The two books share perhaps fifty events and characters. One quality of the Quran when compared to the bible is it's brevity. Whether or not I've tried is irrelevant.

[Yaramaqui]

לק”י

לק”י
Also, I have a question, what is the Islamic view of the Druze people specifically?

Some say they are Muslims.
Some say they are not.
And I've heard that the Druze people are patriots of whatever country they live in.
I don't have an exact opinion on that matter.

Ah, I see. I think that sounds about right. I wonder what others have to say about it. It seems that most people do not have a major opinion on them because they seem to not share many details of their beliefs and do not share some of the books in which they adhere to.

[Minzerland]

Doesn't matter how much blood was spilt, what matters is how much was spilt proportional to population.

It does matter how much blood was split as we're talking about the amount of bloodshed caused by liberalism, not the proportions.

Bloodshed is limited to how many people are available, you claimed that Muhammad is, in comparison, a pacifist. Muhammad could kill less people, because how sparsely populated Dark Age Arabia was, but still be just as bad as the French and American Revolution because he killed more people per capita during his reign (but that is an 'if'). Remember, bloodshed is limited to the availability to that blood.

A lesser propotion doesn't make French revolution less evil and a bigger propotion doesn't make Muhammad (pbuh) worse.

Never said that.

Or else ask anyone else, these questions are not to me.

Incoherent.

[Nacesa Plana]

Islam isn't the last religion. Since the start of Islam, other and new religions were born and more will see the daylight.

Religions are like life. They are born, they grew up and then they die.

There is a difference between a "religion" and an Allah's religion, don't you think?

No, there's no difference. Islam is just a religion like the other ones.
It isn’t that special.

All believers of some religion say their religion is thé religion or thé religion of their god or gods.

Like all religions, someday it will disappear.
Probably sooner as the believers expect.
By instance, if we find life on Mars, Islam and all the other huge mainstream religions will suffer big time.

[Minzerland]

My responses, btw, are a lot worse than I intended them to be; that is because I had to rewrite them twice, after my computer froze.

[Free Rhenish States]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Versus_genocide

Either way, you are getting rid of the unwanted population in a specific land. You trying to deny it by confusing the meaning is yet another logical fallacy.

The excerpt proves me correct;
'Thus, these concepts are different, but related; "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people.'

I never said they weren't in relation; in fact, I link the two in a previous post.

You are confusing terminology and distinctions, twisting them when not applicable to suit a narrative you created.

Are you blaming me in your own doing? I honestly can't think of a bigger fallacy. It wasn't me who avoided answering Israeli ethnic cleansing by switching the topic to discussion of the terms.
I can take the text out of context too, let's see what stands just before your quoted text. Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."
it is therefore obvious that the border between these two terms is shallow and both essentially mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Ethnical cleansing of a territory to get rid of an unwanted part of the population, NO MATTER with what means, the END result is the same.

It wasn't attacked, it was an inspection for illicit items. What you forget to mention is the fact that 40 of the passengers on the MV Mavi Marmara resisted and 9 activists died in the scuffle.
What you forgot to mention is that all of that happened in the international waters and even if they resisted, they were right to do so, because what happened was practically an act of piracy, and also the fact that these 9 were shot while they were supposed to be neutralized (but not killed), which in return was a result of a unit not suitable for melee combat.

Terrible understanding of international waters, international waters are 'Terra nullius' any state can exercise jurisdiction in international waters if a crime is suspected. The Israeli Government had information of a smuggling attempt aboard the ship; they were full within their right to do so

False. The Israeli government had little to no information about who was on the ship and what their plans were, although they had months to obtain it. (source:that same same Israeli forum (need translation by any chance?)).

None of these are applicable to the post I responded to because the Israeli Government hasn't intentionally started killing Palestinians in the way you've described.

Just saying it doesn't make it so, though.
(a) Killing members of the group; - Westbank, Gaza. (Sources: Palestinian sources, B'Tselem...)
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Westbank, Gaza, Al-Aqsa assaults.. (Sources: Palestinian sources, B'tselem)
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (Gaza)

Have you ever read and tried to memorize the Bible, Torah or Quran?

Again. He had no need too memorize them in their entirety. The two books share perhaps fifty events and characters. One quality of the Quran when compared to the bible is it's brevity. Whether or not I've tried is irrelevant.

Great. So you had never tried to memorize any holy scripture (and possibly read any of them to the end), but voiced an opinion nevertheless. This can be ended right here.

Doesn't matter how much blood was spilt, what matters is how much was spilt proportional to population.

That's merely your opinion.

Never said that.

Then your claims are basically have no weight.

Incoherent

If you want to be coherent, what I said had no truck with population propotions, when I said that Russia killed 200,000 Chechens only to restore the "constitutional order" in Chechnya (although that was 20% of the Chechen population back then), I did not mention any propotions, either, even though that would be a very valid point. I have no interest in population propotions whatsoever, if you want to talk about it, talk to someone else.

There is a difference between a "religion" and an Allah's religion, don't you think?

No, there's no difference. Islam is just a religion like the other ones.
It isn’t that special.

All believers of some religion say their religion is thé religion or thé religion of their god or gods.

Like all religions, someday it will disappear.
Probably sooner as the believers expect.
By instance, if we find life on Mars, Islam and all the other huge mainstream religions will suffer big time.

Ok, you voiced your opinion, the only trouble is, your opinion has hardly anything to do with what I said:

1. From a Muslim point of view, Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all Allah's religions before a religion got corrupted and was replaced by another. Islam is the last and will remain uncorrupted until the end of time.

Not every religion is monotheistic and not every religion is an Allah's religion from our perspective, everything else is irrelevant.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatihuh.
Ugh, I keep on missing everything! Well, I had to go to sleep though

To Nacesa Plana:
Just because there might be life on Mars (which there isn't - I knew you're aware of that) doesn't mean Allah (SWT) wouldn't send them revelation. Let me give you an example: Let's say that there's a planet in the nearest star system to us. Let's call it 'Earth 2'. Now various prophets on Earth 2 have been blessed by Allah (SWT) with prophethood. They gave the revelation - roughly the same as Earth's, but not all believe. So the the disbelievers get punished for it.

Now why would you think that religion would go poof if intelligent life was found elsewhere? Allah (SWT) is often called 'Rabbil 'Alameen', meaning Lord of all the worlds, or Lord of all systems of knowledge. Allah (SWT) wouldn't leave a people without the revelation.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Where is everybody?

[Minzerland]

The excerpt proves me correct;
'Thus, these concepts are different, but related; "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people.'

I never said they weren't in relation; in fact, I link the two in a previous post.

You are confusing terminology and distinctions, twisting them when not applicable to suit a narrative you created.

Are you blaming me in your own doing? I honestly can't think of a bigger fallacy.

What fallacy did I commit? Go ahead, I had the courtesy to inform you of yours, tell me mine.

:blink: It wasn't me who avoided answering Israeli ethnic cleansing by switching the topic to discussion of the terms.

I was correcting you. You branded something a genocide, that wasn't, in fact, a genocide. You are free to critism.

I can take the text out of context too, let's see what stands just before your quoted text. Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."
it is therefore obvious that the border between these two terms is shallow and both essentially mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Ethnical cleansing of a territory to get rid of an unwanted part of the population, NO MATTER with what means, the END result is the same

No wrong, they are entirely situational terms and aren't entirely interchangeable. Again I connect the two multiple times. Fortunately, Israel isn't committing a genocide according to your own definition of genocide. The end result varies.

Terrible understanding of international waters, international waters are 'Terra nullius' any state can exercise jurisdiction in international waters if a crime is suspected. The Israeli Government had information of a smuggling attempt aboard the ship; they were full within their right to do so

False. The Israeli government had little to no information about who was on the ship and what their plans were, although they had months to obtain it. (source:that same same Israeli forum (need translation by any chance?)).

False. They had enough information to legally board the ship because it was suspect of smuggling.

Also, I can't speak Russian.

None of these are applicable to the post I responded to because the Israeli Government hasn't intentionally started killing Palestinians in the way you've described.

Just saying it doesn't make it so, though.
(a) Killing members of the group; - Westbank, Gaza. (Sources: Palestinian sources, B'Tselem...)
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Westbank, Gaza, Al-Aqsa assaults.. (Sources: Palestinian sources, B'tselem)
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (Gaza)

That is irrelevant. They aren't applicable to the disputed post.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Read the other 4 in 'Recommended' if you want.

[Kubumba Tribe]

If these sources don't prove genocide I don't know what would. I'll get some more later insha-Allah.

[Minzerland]

If these sources don't prove genocide I don't know what would. I'll get some more later insha-Allah.

It doesn't prove genocide whatsoever.

[Felrik]

If these sources don't prove genocide I don't know what would. I'll get some more later insha-Allah.

You're going to need something better then Vice and a org site.

[Felrik]

If these sources don't prove genocide I don't know what would. I'll get some more later insha-Allah.

You're going to need something better then Vice and a org site.

They're not reliable sources.

[Free Rhenish States]

Are you blaming me in your own doing? I honestly can't think of a bigger fallacy.
What fallacy did I commit? Go ahead, I had the courtesy to inform you of yours, tell me mine.

The latest one was Tu quoque. (part of ad hominenum) But if you wish to list all of them, wishful thinking (Israel is warm and fuzzy), ignoratio elenchi...

I was correcting you. You branded something a genocide, that wasn't, in fact, a genocide. You are free to critism.

It is a fact, and your personal refusal to see it that way doesn't change it.

No wrong, they are entirely situational terms and aren't entirely interchangeable. Again I connect the two multiple times. Fortunately, Israel isn't committing a genocide according to your own definition of genocide. The end result varies.

There is only one end result, which is Palestinians losing their land, part of them killed and part of them forbidden to return home. It's a simple as that, both apply to both genocide and ethnic cleansing.

False. They had enough information to legally board the ship because it was suspect of smuggling.
Also, I can't speak Russian.

I know that you only don't, that won't be a problem as I can always translate it.

.. what? since when did you start to think it was wrong?

It wasn't me, it was an analysis of the boarding by the Israeli military.

1) They shouldn't have fucking (sic) seized the ships at night, they would have entered the territorial waters by the dawn. (somewhy Barak and Lieberman thought there would be less videos taken and everything would have gone smoother)
2) Literally zilch intel concerning the passengers and their plans, though Israel (Mossad, Aman) had a few months to find that out.
3) Sending a unit absolutely unskilled at melee at the deck that wasn't up and one by one. SH-13 was recently sent to retraining to SHABAK where they are going to be taught the methods of boarding without shooting and how to not get a thrashing.

Then, he provides a quote from a mignews article (a Russian-speaking Israeli media website, source: http://mignews.com/news/politic/world/2 ... 45856.html) :

An Israeli sea commando unit (13th Israeli Navy Flotilla) has finished investigation of the events of 31th may at Mavi Marmara

Israeli commando believe that they were not properly warned and did not prepare to face a violent, armed resistance. From theit point of view, the fault lies pre-eminently with the military intelligence that did not inform them about the "character" of the "Freedom Flotilla's passengers".

Besides, the whole Tsahal Operative Command that was busy planning and execution of the operation showed a full professional inadequacy. One of the members of the inner investigation declared: "Why wasn't the attack executed during daylight ours? Why didn't anyone try to take the extremists by surprise, wash them away from the deck with water cannons or throw tear gas grenade at them? The commando should have been boarded a clear deck"

That thread was a discussion of what happened back then. As for why it was boarded, it wasn't boarded because Israel had any information concerning it. It was boarded because it was going to Gaza and refused to turn back, as also stated in the official Israeli version... To conclude, we have the Jews and the Israeli media saying information completely different to yours, so why should we believe you exactly?

That is irrelevant. They aren't applicable to the disputed post.

Just after saying they aren't applicable because the Israeli government doesn't do it that way?

[Free Rhenish States]

Where is everybody?

Probably busy like me, offended (or supressed if you think of it as a more suitable term) like North Arkana or the zionist dude or just lack knowledge to argue further (The Northernmost Americas,
Conserative Morality) expected to answer soon (Minzerland), or, what I honestly consider the worst and despise, waiting for the right moment to say another "smart-looking" load of bullshit and leave. (the Alma Matter)

[Kubumba Tribe]

If these sources don't prove genocide I don't know what would. I'll get some more later insha-Allah.

It doesn't prove genocide whatsoever.

It talks about the definition of genocide, and what crimes Israel is doing to Palestine. It, me, Rhenish, and a whole bunch of others know Israel's dark side - if it has a light side. Zionists try to block it out; their supporters are either unaware or refuse to see.

[Minzerland]

Are you blaming me in your own doing? I honestly can't think of a bigger fallacy.
What fallacy did I commit? Go ahead, I had the courtesy to inform you of yours, tell me mine.

The latest one was Tu quoque. (part of ad hominenum) But if you wish to list all of them, wishful thinking (Israel is warm and fuzzy), ignoratio elenchi...

When did I invoke Tu quoque and wishful thinking? By the way, I haven't invoked ignoratio elenchi at all, in fact, you have invoked it.

I was correcting you. You branded something a genocide, that wasn't, in fact, a genocide. You are free to critism.

It is a fact, and your personal refusal to see it that way doesn't change it.

Ahem
You haven't proved a genocide, using evidence that doesn't support your claim.

No wrong, they are entirely situational terms and aren't entirely interchangeable. Again I connect the two multiple times. Fortunately, Israel isn't committing a genocide according to your own definition of genocide. The end result varies.

There is only one end result, which is Palestinians losing their land, part of them killed and part of them forbidden to return home. It's a simple as that, both apply to both genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Annexation isn't ethnic cleansing. Israel hasn't been intentionally trying to exterminate Palestinians. Forced expulsion is ethnic cleansing. i.e not Genocide.

False. They had enough information to legally board the ship because it was suspect of smuggling.
Also, I can't speak Russian.

I know that you only don't, that won't be a problem as I can always translate it.

The do so.

[Free Rhenish States]

When did I invoke Tu quoque and wishful thinking? By the way, I haven't invoked ignoratio elenchi at all, in fact, you have invoked it.

You invoke wishful thinking all the time by claiming how peaceful Israel actually is. I haven't, and that is when to tu quoque applies. I don't pick upon the words meanings, you do (ignoratio elenchi.

Annexation isn't ethnic cleansing. Israel hasn't been intentionally trying to exterminate Palestinians. Forced expulsion is ethnic cleansing. i.e not Genocide.

No one has ever talked about annexation, there are frequent violations of the genocide conventions in the areas I previously highlighted (i.e killing and harming Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers in West Bank, Gaza). As for the forced expulsion, you are just beating around the bush. Both exactly result in the same thing and both are exactly evil.

The do so.

I don't understand, I'm afraid.

You haven't proved a genocide, using evidence that doesn't support your claim.

I already gave sources to Palestinian and Israeli websites. Palestine-Info, B'tselem. Feel free to look.

[Minzerland]

It doesn't prove genocide whatsoever.

It talks about the definition of genocide, and what crimes Israel is doing to Palestine. It, me, Rhenish, and a whole bunch of others know Israel's dark side - if it has a light side. Zionists try to block it out; their supporters are either unaware or refuse to see.

Your source doesn't indicate a genocide because it hasn't told us how they died and why they died, only that these people were killed. We have no idea if the people were killed by accident as collateral.

[Minzerland]

When did I invoke Tu quoque and wishful thinking? By the way, I haven't invoked ignoratio elenchi at all, in fact, you have invoked it.

You invoke wishful thinking all the time by claiming how peaceful Israel actually is.

I haven't, and that is when to tu quoque applies. I don't pick upon the words meanings, you do (ignoratio elenchi.

The crux of your was that Israel was committing genocide, I corrected that by telling you it isn't genocide.

Annexation isn't ethnic cleansing. Israel hasn't been intentionally trying to exterminate Palestinians. Forced expulsion is ethnic cleansing. i.e not Genocide.

No one has ever talked about annexation, there are frequent violations of the genocide conventions in the areas I previously highlighted (i.e killing and harming Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers in West Bank, Gaza). As for the forced expulsion, you are just beating around the bush. Both exactly result in the same thing and both are exactly evil.

Annexation is what Israel is aiming to do. That isn't genocide by the Israeli Government which hasn't made intentional attempts at killing Palestinians, this is what you're missing, prove Mens Rea. What bush am I beating around.?

Then do so.

I don't understand, I'm afraid.

You said you'd translate...

You haven't proved a genocide, using evidence that doesn't support your claim.

I already gave sources to Palestinian and Israeli websites. Palestine-Info, B'tselem. Feel free to look.

Overly biased sources which again add nothing to your argument.

[Alsheb]

לק”י

Ah, looks like I missed a discussion in regards to the Palestinians. The only thing I really have to say about Zionist is that it has destroyed and severely divided the Jewish world, being one of anti-religion that has made it's attempts to destroy the Jewish people from a peace-loving people that clings and adheres to G-d's Torah to a nationalistic, warmongering group of people who have taken the voice of Ya'aqob, peace be upon him, into holding the sword of Esaw. Not only have the Zionists uprooted the livelihoods of the Palestinians, they have suppressed and rebelled against His will. Such acts are a desecration of His name which will not be tolerated. May there soon be peace and for the tyrannical state of Israel to end hopefully peacefully someday with the Jewis h people clinging to G-d's Torah as how it should be for there to be peace and not the large degree of war that the Zionists have used through many methods of fooling the Jewish people such as even creating a distorted voice of His Torah for the Orthodox masses.

Also, I have a question, what is the Islamic view of the Druze people specifically?

Thank you for these wise words, friend. For the zionists here, it is good to hear the truth coming from a Jew, because if it comes from anyone else they will just accuse them of antisemitism. Despite the fact that a big part of Orthodox Jews also oppose Israel, mainly the True Torah Jews.

About the Druze, I don't know much about them, they seem a closed group. Perhaps they are Muslims, perhaps not. Whetever it may be, I believe we should consider them to be fellow People of the Book.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Overly biased sources which again add nothing to your argument.

I am starting to think you'd type for any of our sources that disagree with you.