"The Words Are Dying"
A funny video on youtube recently remarked on how "The Words are Dying
Why will people refuse to read, and after reading refuse to understand? The words are dying. Three translators provide,
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Unrelentingly there is an insistence that these words cannot mean what they clearly say.
Supposedly, they are taken out of context.
The rest of Al-Tawba must not count as context. The previous text that declares on a certain date all contracts with pagans become void. Certain pagans did win extension of their terms through good behavior till,
009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Prevaricators must destroy the language to hide their crimes.
I'm headed now to Jim 'n' Nicks Inverness if any infidels in B'ham would like to discuss the yet looming conflict with Islam. 7pm, or possibly a little later.
Why will people refuse to read, and after reading refuse to understand? The words are dying. Three translators provide,
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Unrelentingly there is an insistence that these words cannot mean what they clearly say.
Supposedly, they are taken out of context.
The rest of Al-Tawba must not count as context. The previous text that declares on a certain date all contracts with pagans become void. Certain pagans did win extension of their terms through good behavior till,
009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Prevaricators must destroy the language to hide their crimes.
I'm headed now to Jim 'n' Nicks Inverness if any infidels in B'ham would like to discuss the yet looming conflict with Islam. 7pm, or possibly a little later.
posted by maccusgermanis at 7/06/2006 05:56:00 PM
4 Comments:
Dear Mac,
Me- You started this debate with a series of unfounded and or false allegations.
Your response- “Name them. That statement itself is yet another of your false allegations. It is you that have been refuted on each of your points.”
OK, I have limited time, but here is a partial list of your opening volley and what is wrong with the logic. It is not an exhaustive list, but it gets the point across. Also, any source link going to Newsmax begs the question that Newsmax is a reputable source of information or factual accounts of events. That is a debatable and justifiably refuted claim. Any source link going there is suspect atr the very least.
Freedom, is that what jihadist fight for?
You may later dodge the term Jyhadist and try to blame its introduction on me, but you brought it up. You beg the question that Iraqi insurgents are all Jyhadists. They are not.
Me-How's about we quit stationing armies in other countries and quit bombing other peoples.
Your response- Who'd we bomb on Sept. 10, 2001?
That has nothing to do with my suggestion. You are redirecting the debate to an unrelated topic.
Me-"Just make the first move in good faith and see what they do."
Your response-“Have we not? The mouths that curse us often chew our bread.”
Once again redirecting and this time onto an abstract view of History. I am suggesting we try a new approach. Something we have not done yet.
Me-"some times you have to take risks. fortunately, none of them have an airforce or a Navy so we have a little lee way in defensive posturing.
Your response- “True enough. And we are taking risks. We have soldiers at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are a more discriminating weapon than bombing, able to lend aid or detroy as the daily evolving realities dictate."
False agreement and redirect to the 2 dimensional frame. I suggest we try an option other than sending in troops or bombs. You respond that soldiers are less indiscriminate than bombs. You beg the question that we must be there killing.
Me- "Let's just try not killing them and see how it goes for once."
Your response- “You seem to suggest that our military kills indescriminately. This is false.”
You are altering the statement and responding to a point I did not make. Not killing is not qualified by judgement. Once again you have redirected the argument onto a topic that you wish to debate. If that is your wish, begin a debate, but do not feign responses to my suggestions in order to introduce your unrelated arguments.
As anyone can see, you have not even responded to any points I made. Just used middle school debate tricks and over confidence to validate yourself. Logical fallacies sound good to people who do not realize they are fallacies. They are insulting to the rest of us.
Begs the question? Which question? You never got around to asking a question. You again made a statement, as insufferable know-it alls are prone to do. The phrase "debatable and justifiably refuted claim" is a nonsensical statement. What is debatable? What is justifiably refuted? Are they meant to be the same thing? Debate is a process of conversation, by which things may be proven or refuted, the ability to engage in said process is no proof itself.
I introduced the term jihadist. Jyhad is a trade name, used in conjuntion with werewolf games. Jihad is a term widely in use by the insurgence itself. Exceptions, such as Baathist, are hardly notable and do not disprove that jihad is the most common rallying cry among insurgents. You tried to paint insurgents as freedom fighters. What freedom are the fighting for when they oppose democratic elections?
This question that I asked does not qualify as unfounded, false, or even as an allegation. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."
Again, It is you that have made the "unfounded and or false allegation" that we (US) were in some constant state of belligerence that we should "quit bombing other peoples." The "unrelated topic" as you call it demonstrates that we were being attacked by jihadist before the US military invaded Iraq.
Again, This question that I asked does not qualify as unfounded, false, or even as an allegation. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."
Abstract? American aid to foreign nations is unparalleled. This is no abstraction. Again, It is you that have made the "unfounded and or false allegation" that we (US) have not acted in good faith and kindness with foreign nations.
Again, This question that I asked does not qualify as unfounded, false, or even as an allegation. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."
The "false agreement" as you call it did concede that jihadist do not have a navy or air force in the modern sense. Their only means of projecting force, which they are committed to do, is through infiltration. This does offer some leeway for defensive posturing, though we, having force at our disposal, would be fools not to destroy any sanctuary of our self-sworn enemies.
We have been discriminating in the application of this force, contrary to your implications that we (US) have been indiscriminate. And as an added bonus, we have given the populace of Iraq the ability to form their own democratic republic.
Again, These statements do not qualify as unfounded or false allegations. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."
It does seem that you were suggesting that our military kills indiscriminately. If this was not your intent, then it is your responsibility to clarify what was meant when you said "Let's just try not killing them and see how it goes for once." And while you're at it, clarify this mess of a sentence, "Not killing is not qualified by judgement."
My statement, in response to your implication that we should "try not killing them and see how it goes for once" is not an unfounded or false allegations. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."
Once, again your "unfounded and false allegation" that I have not responded most directly to my understanding of what you are trying to say, colored as it may be by your abuse of English grammar, has been directly refuted.
Howdy, Macc! About them words...why folks won't don't read...this is mah theory fer ya:
Doan tell no woman her hubby is cattin' around. She prefers ignorance on account of the irksome necessity ter make a decision and DO somethin' iffin' she has ter acknowledge that she knows what the
sap is up to...see?
Americans (and others) who prefer to live in ignorance of the reality of jihad are those who are jes' like the lady at the salon; pretendin' the hairdryer keeps her from hearin' that Biff wasn't workin' late last night on that Amicus brief, --he was squirin' Buffy round the night clubs. But iffin' Mrs. doan hear nuthin', why there is no problem ter address.
Belle,
After deciphering your affected Southern accent, I must say ditto.
Jes, funin w' ya'
You are exactlly right about the willful ignorance that preserves the right to be lazy and indifferent.
Post a Comment
<< Home