Saturday, May 07, 2016

Donald Trump: Channeling Ethnic and Religious Hostility

This article is my personal point of view on matters arising from Trump's campaign to date that may be of concern to readers of this blog who fear that his presidency would herald a slide from demagogic populism to violence and persecution. It is not my intention to equate Trump with fascism or Nazism, but I will note how his rhetoric can echo those vile voices and may produce violent results.

It does not require much knowledge of Goebbels or Streicher to realize that descriptions of Mexicans as "rapists" and of Islam as "an unbelievable hatred of us" are designed to demonize entire groups. This rhetorical echo is matched by parallels in specific proposals. The forcible deportation of 11 million people would have some similarities with early Nazi policy prior to the onset of the Final Solution, given that round-ups would require coercion and the splitting of families. It would be naive to assume that state violence would only be applied to the "undocumented" rather than the entire neighborhoods in which they lived.

His policies against Muslims would are idiotic as well as bigoted. Does Trump know that many Arabs are Christian and some Persians are Jews? How would these persons be spared the harassment that Trump would visit upon any brown-skinned person passing through an immigration barrier? Trump's surrogate Katrina Pearson advocates that the state pursues the closure of mosques that contain any Muslim who "preaches terrorism", a phrase she presumably feels the state can define. Such persecution would also be pursued through barefaced lying, such as Trump's assertion that "thousands and thousands of people were cheering" when the World Trade Center came down on 9/11.

On antisemitism, the JVL notes:
Although Trump's daughter converted to Judaism in 2009, is married to a Jewish man, observes Shabbat and keeps a Kosher diet, Trump has been known to make anti-Semitic comments. In a 1991 book written by a former close colleague of Trump, the real-estate mogul is quoted as saying, “the only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.” During a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on December 3, 2015, Trump depended on age-old Jewish stereotypes to relate to the crowd and get his message across. Trump commented that he is a, “negotiator... like you folks,” and asked the crowd, “Is there anyone in this room who doesn’t negotiate deals?” Trump added that he thinks that the Jewish people are not going to support him because “I don't want your money. And you want to control your own politicians.” These comments sparked backlash from Israeli news agencies, with the Times of Israel running a headline the next day that read,“Trump courts Republican Jews with offensive stereotypes.” 

Consequently, although Trump does not engage in the antisemitic dog whistling that some commentators believe has been committed by Ted Cruz, his promotion of stereotypes is a regressive prospect for Jews.

90 comments:

bhigr said...

Trump said "I think Islam hates us" First of all Islam doesn't hate. People hate. But the Islamic ideology may contain hatred for non-muslims. If this is true, then Trump has a point. So let us look into the Quran, the infallible words of Allah, in order to find out.

Surah 9, vers 30: "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?"

Sounds very hateful to me. Destroying the Jews reminds me of the Holocaust.

Sergey Romanov said...

It's not a coincidence that so many neo-Nazi/Holocaust deniers/racists support Trump. They know their kind.

Jonathan Harrison said...

To bhigr:

1. I don't think Trump was engaging in a theological discussion.

2. Islam cannot be reduced to one paragraph from the Koran. A religion is more than one paragraph of text.

3. Most of the major religions have a fringe that interprets their texts in a hateful way. But they are fringes for a reason; most followers do not advocate hate or violence against non-believers.

Sergey Romanov said...

There is no such thing as "the Islam" in the first place. There are many Islams, just as there are many Christianities, Judaisms, Buddhisms, etc. It's not a monolith. It's a set of various, often contradictory interpretations. And of course there are plenty of hateful passages in any ancient scripture.

bhigr said...

"2. Islam cannot be reduced to one paragraph from the Koran. A religion is more than one paragraph of text."

The Quran is supposed to be the direct word of Allah. It is the most authoratative source of islamic law. Therefore this quote is an essential part of Islam.

How many quotes from the Quran do you need that spread hatred of non-muslims? How about this one?

Surah 9, Vers 23:O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

http://www.quran.com

Sergey Romanov said...

Just as the quotes calling for stoning of homosexuals are a part of the Jewish and the Christian Bibles. Stop playing dumb.

bhigr said...

"There is no such thing as "the Islam" in the first place" Right, in the same veign you can argue, there is no such thing as national socialism. There is Hitler's NS, Goebbel's NS, Rosenberg'S because they all disagreed here or there.... Sorry, but that's just nonsense. The common beliefs and dogmas of these people represent NS, the dogmas Of Islam are defined by the Ulama...

Sergey Romanov said...

What a dumb thing to say. There was no Hitler's NSDAP, Goebbels' NSDAP etc. There was only NSDAP.

Whereas there are numerous streams of Islamic thought who disagree with each other on various points. Shia v. Sunni is only the tip of the iceberg.

You're just exposing your ignorance with comments like that.

Sergey Romanov said...

Also, you just can't follow simple rules, can you? You've been told by Hans to stop going offtopic in the previous thread. He's the post's author, he makes the rules.

bhigr said...

Sure there are numerous streams, but they all have something in common. Therefore, they are Islamic thought. The common denominator is Islam and at the core of the denominator is the verbal inspiration of the Quran.

bhigr said...

I didn't see his post, why are you allowed to go off topic, but not me? Can you follow the rules?

Sergey Romanov said...

Yes, and how to interpret specific Quranic injunctions is exactly the question different Muslims disagree about. So simply quoting the Quran proves nothing, no more than simply quoting some Biblical verse to prove something about all Christians or religious Jews.

bhigr said...

NSDAP is a party not an ideology. There were ideological differences among the leaders of the Nazis. No one concludes from these differences that NS ideology didn't exist. But that is your line of reasoning.

Sergey Romanov said...

"I didn't see his post, why are you allowed to go off topic, but not me? Can you follow the rules?"

I didn't go offtopic after Hans' comment, you silly thing. You're the only one who did.

bhigr said...

You are wrong because you do not understand the meaning of the Quran in islamic ideology. The laqs of the Sharia follow directly from Quranic injunction. The words of Allah are Islamic law.

bhigr said...

Sure you went off topic. You talked about Eric Hunt.

bhigr said...

If you want to talk about Islam without quoting the Quran, then this is like talking about Christianity without talking about Jesus. It doesn't make any sense.

Sergey Romanov said...

"NSDAP is a party not an ideology. There were ideological differences among the leaders of the Nazis. No one concludes from these differences that NS ideology didn't exist. But that is your line of reasoning."

No, that's not my line of reasoning. The differences between the Islamic ideologies manifest in the existence of various competing sects, something which wasn't true of the NSDAP.

It makes no more sense to speak about "the Islam" than it is to speak about "the Communism", *except* in the most general way (e.g.: Muslims accept the Quran as the word of God and Muhammad as his prophet).

You on the other hand are discussing the scriptural interpretation. And you can't assume that all - or even most - Muslims simply accept the specific ayats as you understand them, or that they agree in their interpretation.

Sergey Romanov said...

"You are wrong because you do not understand the meaning of the Quran in islamic ideology. The laqs of the Sharia follow directly from Quranic injunction. The words of Allah are Islamic law."

Just as the words of God are the Christian and the Jewish law. Except everybody interprets them differently. You're displaying basic ignorance of how religions function.

"If you want to talk about Islam without quoting the Quran, then this is like talking about Christianity without talking about Jesus. It doesn't make any sense."

If you want to talk about the Quran without talking about different, often contradictory interpretations various versions of Islam have of it, it's like talking about what Christians believe by only basing yourself on a random version of the Bible. It doesn't make any sense.

bhigr said...

You talk about spiritual interpretations, but fail to demonstrate their existence. Please give me the "spiritual" interpretations of these lines:

Surah 9, Vers 5: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Sounds pretty hateful to me.

Sergey Romanov said...

"Sure you went off topic. You talked about Eric Hunt."

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're so dull-witted, you being a denier and all.

Find a single comment about Hunt from me after this injunction from Hans:

"Okay, enough talking about Hunt. This posting is about German gas vans."

Sergey Romanov said...

"You talk about spiritual interpretations, but fail to demonstrate their existence."

Oh, I don't have to demonstrate anything, the burden of proof is on you: you brought up the Quranic ayats, so it's your job to give the full and fair discussion of how all the different versions of Islam interpret these verses. Your own understanding doesn't matter in the least. Only how various Muslim sects understand it.

bhigr said...

Sure you don't have anything. I have the interpretation of all the translators of the Quran into English.

Sergey Romanov said...

LOL, what an idiot. Translators aren't religious interpreters, they're translators. You've shown you know squat about how religious thought functions.

Sergey Romanov said...

According to the dumbo's logic every church and synagogue is a stoning site for gays, disobedient children and sabbath-breakers. Because hey, that's what the plain text says, ROFL.

bhigr said...

The trick of shifting the burden of proof is quite apparent here. I provide evidence, then you claim that this evidence can be interpreted in some different way. You don't state how it could be interpreted differently and you don't want to prove the conjectures that you make. Is this the way you also discuss the Holocaust??

Sergey Romanov said...

You haven't provided any evidence of how different Islamic sects understand the verses you quoted. IOW, you got nuthin'.

bhigr said...

You are wrong. Interpretation means finding out the meaning of a text. That's what translators do. Because they have to render the meaning in a different language.

Are personal insults like Dumbo actually allowed here or do you stand above and beyond any rules of decent conduct?

bhigr said...

You claim that there exist Islamic sects which have a different interpretation of these texts. Since this is your claim, you have the burden of proof.

Sergey Romanov said...

No, religious interpretation has nothing to do with translation (except when a specific interpretation biases the translation, but that's not what we're discussing).

Translation: "if a man lies with a man, stone them to death".

Interpretations: 1. "yes, sir!" 2. "um, it was only for those times, no longer relevant" 3. "they only meant that in context of pagan cult prostitution practices" 4. "still in force but only the Sanhedrin can make the decision and there is no Sanhedrin" 5. "we would, if not for the secular law" 6. "the laws of mercy override this" 7. some other stuff

My objective characterizations of you stand, but yes, you better not try to fling any personal insults in return. It's our platform, we make the rules. Find your own and make your own rules. Nobody is forcing you to participate here.

bhigr said...

The person who demonstrated his ignorance is you Sergey. You make false analogies with Christianity because you do not understand that the Quran has a different meaning in Islam than the Bible has in mainstream Christian theology. I told you, but you didn't listen.

By the way, killing gays and apostates is indeed practiced in Islamic States...Because this is Sharia law.

Sergey Romanov said...

"You claim that there exist Islamic sects which have a different interpretation of these texts. Since this is your claim, you have the burden of proof."

No, you brought up these texts to prove your point, the burden of proof is on you to show how different Islamic sects understand them. For a very simple reason: your personal understanding of these texts doesn't matter in the slightest if you're talking about how "Islam" interprets them. In order to demonstrate this you have to do quite a lot of legwork - read the tafsir, various religious scholars etc.

bhigr said...

Sorry my dear, but Christianity does not regard the old Testament as a book of laws, since God made a new covenant with mankind. Therefore Christian children are not circumcised. However, the Quran is a book of laws that must be followed. I told you so, but the poor lad wouldn't listen.

Why don't you start by reading Sharia and Quran on Wikipedia.

Sergey Romanov said...

"The person who demonstrated his ignorance is you Sergey. You make false analogies with Christianity because you do not understand that the Quran has a different meaning in Islam than the Bible has in mainstream Christian theology. I told you, but you didn't listen."

That's just your claim that you haven't established. In fact the function of the Quranic text in mainstream Islamic sects is very similar to the function of the Torah in the mainstream Judaic sects. Namely, the faithful turn to "scholarly" interpetations of the verses - be that Talmud, tafsir or contemporary religious interpreters. Which is why you direct appeal to these ayats makes zero sense.

BTW there is no such thing as "mainstream Christian theology", because it makes no sense to unite Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant theologies under such an umbrella term, so once again you're showing your ignorance - even of Christianity. And you forgot about Judaism.

"By the way, killing gays and apostates is indeed practiced in Islamic States...Because this is Sharia law."

See, and yet the Quran doesn't say anything about stoning gays.

Sergey Romanov said...

"Sorry my dear, but Christianity does not regard the old Testament as a book of laws"

Tell that to the Christian Reconstructionists, dumbo.

Your penchant for generalizing the ungeneralizable made you shoot your foot again.

bhigr said...

The Quran actually tells you how it must be interpreted. But you obviously never looked into the book, because on page 2 you would have found the following words:

Surah 2, Vers2: This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

The Quran is a book of guidance and it allows no doubt, it is infallible. The rules of guidance are called Sharia.

Sergey Romanov said...

Oh, and once again you forgot about Judaism. You can't even follow the discussion, heh.

bhigr said...

Since you have no arguments and no evidence, you start insulting me. That does not reflect well upon your character.

Sergey Romanov said...

"The Quran actually tells you how it must be interpreted."

And how it *is* interpreted - including the very verse you have cited - is decided by the interpreters. Back to square one, ignoramus.

bhigr said...

I am not talking about Judaism. Why are you allowed to change the subject matter? I thought off topic discussion are forbidden on this blog?

Sergey Romanov said...

"Since you have no arguments and no evidence, you start insulting me. That does not reflect well upon your character."

My objective characterizations of you aside, I have responded to each and every argument. You have yet to respond to mine or to provide the actual Islamic interpretations of the verses instead of your fantasies.

Sergey Romanov said...

"I am not talking about Judaism. Why are you allowed to change the subject matter? I thought off topic discussion are forbidden on this blog?"

But I am, dumbo. Discussion of the OT verses necessarily includes the discussion of the Judaic interpetations of them. But of course, you can't apply your (in any case incorrect) "it's not the law!" red herring to the Torah in context of Judaism, so you prefer to shout "SQUIRREL!" by arbitrarily limiting the discussion to Christianity only.

bhigr said...

What interpreters are you talking about? You have never even looked into the Quran, but do not refrain from talking about fictional interpreters of the Quran. You are losing this dispute and everybody can read it. You should call the censor in order to save you once more.

bhigr said...

I know, you are talking about Judaism, which is off topic. Why can't you stick to the rules?

Sergey Romanov said...

"What interpreters are you talking about?"
"fictional interpreters of the Quran"

So you have just admitted you don't know the first thing about Islam.

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

"You have never even looked into the Quran"

And now you're outright lying. Nice!

Sergey Romanov said...

"I know, you are talking about Judaism, which is off topic. Why can't you stick to the rules?"

And it is offtopic because you said so, dumbo? ROFL. No wonder you're a Holocaust denier, your thought processes are clearly faulty.

bhigr said...

I didn't arbitrarily limit the discussion. This is a discussion about a remark Mr. Hunt made, which does not concern Judaism. Therefore, you are off topic. I have no opinion on judaism. Therefore I won't comment on it.

bhigr said...

Mr Trump's remark on Islamic hatred. That's what we are talking about. Post a new blog and discuss the theology of Judaism if you like. But stop posting insulting spam, which is off topic.

bhigr said...

Sure, let's look at the most famous tafsir of ibn Kathir. What does he say about Surah 9, Vers 5? Go post it!

Sergey Romanov said...

"I didn't arbitrarily limit the discussion. This is a discussion about a remark Mr. Hunt made, which does not concern Judaism. Therefore, you are off topic. I have no opinion on judaism. Therefore I won't comment on it."

Are you drunk?

1. We are not discussing Hunt or his remarks here.
2. Judaic and Christian non-literal (or non-applicability) interpretations of the Torah are analogous to various Islamic non-literal (or non-applicability) interpretations of the Quran and expose your citing the Quran without discussion of what it means for different Muslims today as pure idiocy and ignorance of how religious thought functions.
3. You were happily discussing the Christian interpretations without noting that they were somehow offtopic.
4. In fact it was you who brought up an offtopic and irrelevant pseudoanalogy (NS) but you protest when actually valid analogies are made! (But you protest selectively, as per point 3).
5. Only the post's author decides whether he will allow offtopic discussions. Jon hasn't told us to quit it. Therefore we continue. Some denier prick won't be dictating what is offtopic and what is not here, at this blog.

Sergey Romanov said...

"Sure, let's look at the most famous tafsir "

Oh now you have acknowledged that interpreters exist. But too late, you have already been exposed as an ignoramus who doesn't know the first thing about Islam (so there is no sense to discuss it with you, go learn something about it first, kiddo), as well as a liar.

"Go post it!"

The burden of proof was, is and will remain on you.

bhigr said...

Sure, T
this is a red herring. I never doubt that there were different commentaries of the Quran. What do you want me to prove? Can't you prove anything yourself?

bhigr said...

Kiddo, liar, Dumbo,... Please quote the peaceful "interpretation" of Surah 9, Vers 5 or non hateful interpretation of any verse I quoted from any tafsir you like. It doesn't exist.

bhigr said...

Where are all those Non-literal interpretations of the Quran? The standard tafsir of ibn Kathir, al kurtubi, the who is who of Islamic theology do not support your thesis.

Sergey Romanov said...

"I never doubt that there were different commentaries of the Quran."

vs.

"What interpreters are you talking about?"
"fictional interpreters of the Quran"

"Please quote the peaceful "interpretation" of Surah 9, Vers 5 or non hateful interpretation of any verse I quoted from any tafsir you like."

Took me 5 sec to google:

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_95_commentary/

"It doesn't exist."

And you are exposed as a liar *once again*.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Just go to Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse#Interpretations

These interpretations are a long way from "Hate 21st century Jews and Christians"

Sergey Romanov said...

Funny thing is, as an atheist and an anti-clericalist, I'm used to talk about the negative aspects of religions - any religions, including Islam and Judaism. But I won't do it with ignorant know-nothings who don't understand the basics, that's for sure.

bhigr said...

It took me seconds to find that this "interpretation" is not peaceful and a bunch of lies. The verse is not revealed during a battle. It was revealed after Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. The Moslems are asked to wait for months until they fight and they are ordered to fight until the pagans are dead or have converted to Islam.

bhigr said...

Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, even in times of war is a warcrime. Kill the Germans or French wherever you find them is not peaceful and it's hateful. It's a crime.

Sergey Romanov said...

"It took me seconds to find that this "interpretation" is not peaceful and a bunch of lies. The verse is not revealed during a battle."

Um, it doesn't matter whether you think the interpretation makes sense or not. The only thing that matters is whether the believers think it makes sense. Most religious interpretations don't make any sense to me. It doesn't cancel out the fact that the religious accept them.

bhigr said...

Ignorant know nothing is what you are. Take a look in the mirror.I find it astonishing how supposedly illuminated people defend the most atrocious texts.

bhigr said...

Oh it does matter whether the interpretation is truthful or a lie. This is taquia lying, because the historical context is a pure invention, that has no basis in the Hadith or tafsir.

Sergey Romanov said...

Fling more insults and we'll say goodbye to you.
You're once again trying to change the subject from how various Muslim sects understand the verse to how you think it should be understood.

The "kill the gays" verse is atrocious, most religious Jews don't kill gays nowadays, they somehow get around this verse just as most Muslims get around the bad stuff in the Quran, pointing that out is not the same as to "defend the most atrocious texts".

Sergey Romanov said...

"Oh it does matter whether the interpretation is truthful or a lie. This is taquia lying, because the historical context is a pure invention, that has no basis in the Hadith or tafsir."

Oh look at you, an hour ago you didn't know what tafsir was, now you're an expert! ROFL.

Actually you can't show that the interpretation is not sincerely accepted by many/most Muslims. Conspiratorial and evidence-free cries of "taqiyya" don't help you there.

bhigr said...

I repeated your insults. For some reason you do not stick to any rules that you ask others to follow. This is the definition of hypocrisy. I don't care what you say about Jews because it is off topic. The most religious Muslims kill mushrikun nowadays, following sura 9, Vers 5.

bhigr said...

I know what I am talking about, yes. Unfortunately you don't.

bhigr said...

I can show that it is not sincere. You can't wait for months until you engage in a battle. If you do that, your dead. Therefore, the verse was not revealed during a battle. It's that simple.

When the sacred months have passed, then kill the disbelievers wherever you find them...

But you chose to believe blindly this bullshit...

Sergey Romanov said...

"I repeated your insults. For some reason you do not stick to any rules that you ask others to follow."

Um, yes, because it's my (and my friends') blog and we get to make the rules, and you don't get to question them. It's that simple.

"This is the definition of hypocrisy."

Not at all. You're a guest here, not we. Different rules apply simply by def. Don't like it? Post elsewhere. Whining won't help.

"I don't care what you say about Jews because it is off topic."

You only call it offtopic because it blows your braindead method of interpeting the Quran for Muslims out of water. By your logic religious Jews should be stoning gays right now. Since they don't, your logic doesn't work, so you're trying out these "offtopic" red herrings (while happily engaging in truly offtopic stuff yourself).

"The most religious Muslims kill mushrikun nowadays, following sura 9, Vers 5."

Maybe "most religious" by your definition, but you've already shown that you don't know first thing about Islam and that you're an imbecilic liar, so your definition doesn't matter all that much.

"I know what I am talking about, yes. Unfortunately you don't."

You've demonstrated the opposite time and again. :D

Sergey Romanov said...

"I can show that it is not sincere. You can't wait for months until you engage in a battle. If you do that, your dead. Therefore, the verse was not revealed during a battle. It's that simple."

And where is the promised demonstration? To repeat, the interpretation doesn't have to be logical or factual - most religious interpretations aren't. Read a religious book sometime. It doesn't mean that the believers don't sincerely accept them. It's a fact of life that they do. So you will have to show that most Muslims don't accept this (or analogous) interpretation.

bhigr said...

So you make the rules that you chose not to adhere to yourselves. That's the definition of hypocrisy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

bhigr said...

Sure I proved that the interpreter is lying. He lies about the historical context of the verse. Last but not least, his interpretation amounts to the command of war crimes. Not very peaceful.

bhigr said...

Finally, let's see what the most popular and mainstream tafsir says about this verse, Ibn Kathir:

. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important.

bhigr said...


"And where is the promised demonstration? To repeat, the interpretation doesn't have to be logical or factual - most religious interpretations aren't."

Sorry, lying about a verse and it's context is not an interpretation, it's a lie.

Sergey Romanov said...

"So you make the rules that you chose not to adhere to yourselves. That's the definition of hypocrisy"

Nope.

"the quality of acting in a way that goes against claimed beliefs or feelings"

I don't claim that flinging insults is bad and nobody should do it. If I said that and then would fling insults, I would be a hypocrite. But I don't think insults are inherently bad. You just don't get to insult us on our territory, while we are free to do so. It's not because it's "good" or "bad", it's just how it is. Deal with it.

As another example, as a co-owner of the blog I can delete your comments. Whereas you can't delete mine. Is that hypocritical? Not at all. Just a fact of life.

"Sure I proved that the interpreter is lying. He lies about the historical context of the verse. Last but not least, his interpretation amounts to the command of war crimes. Not very peaceful."

The interpreter may be self-deluding, as religious interpreters are wont to be, but we're talking about whether or not this or similar interpretation is accepted by most Muslims. I'd say it is given how most Muslims are not waging war on unbelievers just for the heck of it. (Some do, but nobody denied that.)

As for your comments about whether it's peaceful or not, you seem to be in the bargaining stage. A while ago you thought the verse was about simple unconditional killing of any unbelievers.

bhigr said...

""So you make the rules that you chose not to adhere to yourselves. That's the definition of hypocrisy"

Nope."

Wonderful. You insult incessantly but chose to ban anyone who insults you. Then you lie by stating that you are not a hypocrite.

Here is merriam-webster definition of hypocrisy:

The behaviour of people who do things that they tell other people not to do.

bhigr said...

The interpreter is not self deluding, he is lying. He knows that this verse was not disclosed during a battle. This story has been circulated by zakir Naik, who has been proven to lie time and time again.

bhigr said...

" I'd say it is given how most Muslims are not waging war on unbelievers just for the heck of it. (Some do, but nobody denied that.) "

That's because offensive jihad is a collective, not an individual obligation of the Sharia. You do not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

Sergey Romanov said...

Actually you omitted the full form of the simple definition: "the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel"

The first part must be interpreted in the context of the second one, otherwise a commander telling a solider to be silent is a hypocrite because he himself is not staying silent, which is of course nonsense.

Plus here is the full def which you have also failed to cite:

Full Definition of hypocrisy
plural hypocrisies
1
: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2
: an act or instance of hypocrisy

And as I said, it's not what I believe or feel, so it's not hypocrisy.

So you're the only proven liar here.

Sergey Romanov said...

"The interpreter is not self deluding, he is lying. He knows that this verse was not disclosed during a battle. This story has been circulated by zakir Naik, who has been proven to lie time and time again."

You don't know what happens in the interpreter's head, but the state of mind of the interpreter is irrelevant, as I have pointed out before. The only thing that matters is whether this or similar def is accepted by actual believers. The burden of proof is on you to show that it isn't.

"That's because offensive jihad is a collective, not an individual obligation of the Sharia. You do not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about."

LOL, just now you were insisting on relying on the Quran only, but suddenly you're bringing extraneous sources in. Now *that's* hypocrisy.

Doesn't matter though - you've already been established as a liar ignorant about Islam.

bhigr said...

I never insisted on relying on the Quran only, that one more of your lies, liar!

bhigr said...

If you are so untruthful and hypocritical, then why should I trust anything of what you state otherwise?

Sergey Romanov said...

Actually you've spent the entire time on this thread by insisting that we only rely on the alleged literal reading of this verse without any extraneous interpretation (going so far as to deny, in your utter ignorance, that interpreters of the Quran exist!) because it is seen as the word of God and the direct source of the Islamic law, but now not only you insist on interpreting this verse in the light of some extraneous source that says something about a collective obligation, you deny that you've spent the entire thread arguing for the opposite, even though anybody can scroll up and see what you have been up to.

You're obviously a pathological liar, so there's not much sense in discussing this with you further.

Sergey Romanov said...

bhigr's later comments consisted mostly of insults and were deleted.

Jonathan Harrison said...

bhigr gave us a preview of how Trump's Islamophobe surrogates might behave:

1. Start by saying "Islam hates us"

2. Cherrypick one paragraph to represent the whole of Islam

3. Deny that multiple conflicting interpretations of that text exist within Islamic theology

4. Ignore the fact that all but a tiny fraction of Muslims do not apply that text in their lives

5. Claim that this tiny fraction is the "most religious", as if this has the same meaning as most extreme, fanatical and doctrinaire

As for our right to kick people off the thread, I would say it is not just our wont but also our obligation if a poster:

a) just keeps repeating a claim we have refuted in an earlier reply

b) does not support their arguments with evidence that moves the discussion forward

c) whines about the rules of a blog that does not claim to give deniers unlimited free speech

d) is simply fronting for denial while claiming to be "just asking questions" (JAQing off)

Sergey Romanov said...

bhigr has been spanked here, shown to be an incompetent ignoramus and a liar, so now he tries to come back and leave some butthurt comments. Won't happen. Sorry, at this point it's just spam.

Jeff said...

Everyone here needs to see this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Ivji-ph4A

J Kelly said...

That was funny, thanks for the video.
I am frightened this man could possibly become president.

Andrew E. Mathis said...

Interesting post, JH. I'd add only that the sheer number of enforcement agents necessary to deport 11 million people would require a massive influx of human resources, which would almost assuredly result in people with inferior qualifications becoming involved -- which means abuses are almost guaranteed. Beyond that, the agricultural economy of California would probably collapse -- people are loath to admit that much of the agricultural work that undocumented and documented immigrants perform is skilled labor; you'd need to train the people you intend to send into lettuce fields, and given the time you need to do that, you'd lose food. To boot, agriculture is one of the largest industries in California (after tourism and entertainment -- maybe high tech).

Jonathan Harrison said...

The costs would also be impossible to justify. Here's the stats:

http://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-personnel-and-infrastructure-needed-to-remove-all-undocumented-immigrants-in-two-years/?gclid=CMPb_YDczMwCFQNkhgodakMPKQ

Jeff said...

@JKelly

This one is even better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0