> 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.
But I have named the doctrines. Remember when we discussed your beliefs about fighting Jews at the end of time and traitorous bushes? You got very angry about it. There are many more but you should probably acknowledge this one.
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.
How does that demonstrate that Islam sanctions unrestricted violence against Jews?
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?
So you do believe you will fight Jews at the end of time, but dispute that this is a call for unrestricted violence? Do you think it’s a call for… a more restricted violence? It is the end of time - I would assume your intentions are to really make it count.
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.
According to the ahadith, a minority of Jews will ally with the false Messiah and persecute people throughout the world and cause corruption; and it will be this group that the Muslims will fight.
Nothing about this calls for unrestricted violence.
> 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?
> a minority of Jews will ally with the false Messiah and persecute people throughout the world and cause corruption
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=44351915
> 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?
> I am not going to let you snake around. I can see the slithering.
> 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 refresh your memory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44372664
Let me start with a basic logic lesson: You're committing what's called the "composition fallacy." That's when you take one small part of something and pretend it describes the whole thing. Like saying "this car has a red door, therefore the entire car is red." You're taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent." That's not how logic works.
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.
> You're taking one eschatological reference about future conflict and claiming it makes all of Islam "violent."
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.
So you continue to demonstrate the exact intellectual dishonesty I've been documenting across threads.
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.
> You aren't responding to the fact that you're committing the composition fallacy
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.
> The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see.
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 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?
I am going to systematically address every single evasion in your latest response.
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.
> 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.